Monday, November 09, 2009
Health Care Reform (?)
Concerns:
(A) I still worry that once the sausage making is done in the Senate, we'll end up with something that mandates health insurance purchase, gives health insurers every excuse to increase insurance prices and does nothing to ensure real competition to make sure price increases don't happen.
This will be the "compromise" that ensures "bipartisan support" -- except it won't. Holy Joe and the GOoPers (how's that for a band-name) will still filibuster, a few Dems. won't vote for the final bill (including 1 or 2 liberals because it will be a piece of crap bill). Thus in 2010, the GOP will be able to campaign that "the Dems. pushed through a partisan bill, facing bipartisan opposition, that even some liberal Senators didn't support -- and this bill has made your health care more expensive, etc., rather than better", etc., etc. (c.f. all my earlier posts on how problems with health care reform will affect support for Dems and progressive legislation). Of course, the so-called liberal media is always gaga for "compromises", so they'll support the bill -- which will give the GOP more leverage with it's "even the liberal media" arguments (as well as help cement the linkage between liberalism and wanking in the public's eye).
(B) Perhaps the Stupak amendment will be a wake-up call to an issue many Dems (including myself) tend to ignore but looms large in public concerns about health care reform: government run health care will indeed set-up a minimum standard for health care (because in order for private insurers to survive, they will need to do better than the minimum). However, the free market tends to sink to the lowest bar possible. Thus, whatever services are not provided by government health care will, with the exception of a few token services that private insurers will provide to gain market share with "value added" products, will not be provided by private insurers ... even if they provide such services now, private insurers may not continue to provide such services after they have to "cut costs to satisfy new regulatory requirements" (vide supra).
In fact, private insurers have already pulled this trick. Remember in the 1990s where there was a lot of talk about un-necessary procedures and the winds of health care reform under Clinton started blowing? Well, private insurers used this as an opportunity to start denying claims -- and it got so bad you could be in an ER for respiratory distress and your insurer would deny the claim of a chest X-ray! (happened to me)
We (I myself have argued this) argue that adding a public option, etc., will not affect those who already have insurance, but lot of fear that those with health insurance will be affected negatively by health care reform is based on what has happened previously with even attempts at reform. Dems. now are starting to realize this with the Stupak amendment -- if government subsidized health insurance won't cover abortions, why will private insurers do so? -- but it's a general issue.
If health insurance reform will result in those currently with health insurance having their coverage reduced to the point where it is just above the minimal insurance provided via a public option or some similar mechanism, then many of us who do have health insurance will be very unlikely to support it. And, the way sausage making works, you can bet that whatever government run health insurance comes out of said sausage making will be pretty horrid (because "to have robust health insurance subsidized by the government would cost too much money" the wankers will say).
So what will ensure that those of us who are lucky enough to have health insurance currently won't see our quality of health care plummet with health insurance reform?
(C) Small businesses -- health insurance is an issue that turns glibertarian would-be small-businessmen concerned about taxes and regulations killing their nascent businesses into commie pinko moonbat small-businessmen who cannot afford to provide health coverage for their employees but who need to hire employees to grow and who thus realize that the best thing government can do for them is not to get out of the way as they previously thought but rather to provide everyone with socialized medicine.
Unfortunately, the house bill mandates that employers provide employees with health insurance. Health care reform is a winning issue for Democrats because it is a wonderful example for glibertarian chamber of commerce types of how the progressive agenda and big government would actually help said chamber of commerce types. Unfortunately, the mandates, etc., of even the House bill will just re-enforce every fear Joe and Jane Shopkeeper have about "big gummint". And the Senate is, by design, even more out of touch with Main Street than is the House.
In general, I think the Dems are, as usual, shooting themselves in the foot by trying to have a "compromise" health care reform package. We need to have a public health care system in this country -- why not just provide one and let it grow until we get teh socialized medicine? Instead the Dems are crafting an overly complicated bill with a series of compromises that will satisfy no-one and that will backfire, both in terms of providing health coverage to people and politically.
What is up with the Democratic party? At a time when the GOP is in a tailspin, the Dems. still are busy with duck fondling that they can't even take advantage of the situation and pass popular legislation? Instead they have to make a bunch of sausage that will just make everyone sick? What's up with that?
(A) I still worry that once the sausage making is done in the Senate, we'll end up with something that mandates health insurance purchase, gives health insurers every excuse to increase insurance prices and does nothing to ensure real competition to make sure price increases don't happen.
This will be the "compromise" that ensures "bipartisan support" -- except it won't. Holy Joe and the GOoPers (how's that for a band-name) will still filibuster, a few Dems. won't vote for the final bill (including 1 or 2 liberals because it will be a piece of crap bill). Thus in 2010, the GOP will be able to campaign that "the Dems. pushed through a partisan bill, facing bipartisan opposition, that even some liberal Senators didn't support -- and this bill has made your health care more expensive, etc., rather than better", etc., etc. (c.f. all my earlier posts on how problems with health care reform will affect support for Dems and progressive legislation). Of course, the so-called liberal media is always gaga for "compromises", so they'll support the bill -- which will give the GOP more leverage with it's "even the liberal media" arguments (as well as help cement the linkage between liberalism and wanking in the public's eye).
(B) Perhaps the Stupak amendment will be a wake-up call to an issue many Dems (including myself) tend to ignore but looms large in public concerns about health care reform: government run health care will indeed set-up a minimum standard for health care (because in order for private insurers to survive, they will need to do better than the minimum). However, the free market tends to sink to the lowest bar possible. Thus, whatever services are not provided by government health care will, with the exception of a few token services that private insurers will provide to gain market share with "value added" products, will not be provided by private insurers ... even if they provide such services now, private insurers may not continue to provide such services after they have to "cut costs to satisfy new regulatory requirements" (vide supra).
In fact, private insurers have already pulled this trick. Remember in the 1990s where there was a lot of talk about un-necessary procedures and the winds of health care reform under Clinton started blowing? Well, private insurers used this as an opportunity to start denying claims -- and it got so bad you could be in an ER for respiratory distress and your insurer would deny the claim of a chest X-ray! (happened to me)
We (I myself have argued this) argue that adding a public option, etc., will not affect those who already have insurance, but lot of fear that those with health insurance will be affected negatively by health care reform is based on what has happened previously with even attempts at reform. Dems. now are starting to realize this with the Stupak amendment -- if government subsidized health insurance won't cover abortions, why will private insurers do so? -- but it's a general issue.
If health insurance reform will result in those currently with health insurance having their coverage reduced to the point where it is just above the minimal insurance provided via a public option or some similar mechanism, then many of us who do have health insurance will be very unlikely to support it. And, the way sausage making works, you can bet that whatever government run health insurance comes out of said sausage making will be pretty horrid (because "to have robust health insurance subsidized by the government would cost too much money" the wankers will say).
So what will ensure that those of us who are lucky enough to have health insurance currently won't see our quality of health care plummet with health insurance reform?
(C) Small businesses -- health insurance is an issue that turns glibertarian would-be small-businessmen concerned about taxes and regulations killing their nascent businesses into commie pinko moonbat small-businessmen who cannot afford to provide health coverage for their employees but who need to hire employees to grow and who thus realize that the best thing government can do for them is not to get out of the way as they previously thought but rather to provide everyone with socialized medicine.
Unfortunately, the house bill mandates that employers provide employees with health insurance. Health care reform is a winning issue for Democrats because it is a wonderful example for glibertarian chamber of commerce types of how the progressive agenda and big government would actually help said chamber of commerce types. Unfortunately, the mandates, etc., of even the House bill will just re-enforce every fear Joe and Jane Shopkeeper have about "big gummint". And the Senate is, by design, even more out of touch with Main Street than is the House.
In general, I think the Dems are, as usual, shooting themselves in the foot by trying to have a "compromise" health care reform package. We need to have a public health care system in this country -- why not just provide one and let it grow until we get teh socialized medicine? Instead the Dems are crafting an overly complicated bill with a series of compromises that will satisfy no-one and that will backfire, both in terms of providing health coverage to people and politically.
What is up with the Democratic party? At a time when the GOP is in a tailspin, the Dems. still are busy with duck fondling that they can't even take advantage of the situation and pass popular legislation? Instead they have to make a bunch of sausage that will just make everyone sick? What's up with that?
Friday, October 23, 2009
Let's get this right: I am a Concern Niebelung, not a Concern Troll
Perhaps the conservatives and the so-called liberal media (who know they are "out of touch" and figure -- incorrectly -- they are liberal and hence conflate their own out-of-touch-ness with liberalism) are right -- liberals are out of touch with everyday 'Murkins.
Consider the response to (as well as what prompted) this bit of Niebelungeheit on my part. Do liberals really think that the Dems are guaranteed the kind of establishment in-party status the GOP (in spite of Carter and Clinton) enjoyed from some time in the 1970s until 2006? Right now, of course, the GOP is really bringing out the crazy, but what happens if the GOP gets its act together? To me, the response to Christie blowing a 16 point lead should not be "see GOoPer trolls, the GOP is safe" but rather "what if the GOP gets its act together (which is a big if) and the next Christie-type doesn't blow his lead? how do we prevent this from happening?"
I think part of the problem is that we liberals are mainly used to hearing this kind of question from the so-called liberal media which always claims the solution is for us to moderate and compromise with the GOP even more to remain "in the mainstream". So it is perhaps understandable that when a Niebelung raises such questions, they would raise red flags and so many liberals would immediately get defensive about what is being suggested.
But there is still in the responses to my comment a strong element of misunderstanding of the American psyche, which misunderstanding by the Democrats has hurt us -- and the GOP was able to do so well, until they started to unravel and until it was so obvious what a disaster Bush & CO were, because they understood this aspect of the American psyche. The thing is that Americans are profoundly anti-ideological. The key American question is "what's the big idea?" -- and not as a matter of curiosity about the ideology but as a matter of scorn that any big idea can be good. Our mindset is not "that's a great idea" but rather "get 'er done". And the GOP was able to speak that language very well, which is why they were able to do so well for so long. Of course, it must be added that while the American distrust of ideology is almost positivistic -- Americans are not positivists ... their distaste for ideological thought extends to a distaste of questioning their own ideological assumptions, which leads to a certain traditionalism and maintenance of those assumptions, including a strong tendency toward religiosity, absent in, e.g., the more 'ideological' Continent.
The problem Democrats have -- whether its Blue Dogs trying to be "moderates" in order to appeal to the moderate, non-ideological electorate or it's liberal Dems who think that appeals for Dems to reach out to moderates are necessarily appeals to moderate -- is that we tend to assume people are ideologically consistent when, in fact, they don't give a darn about ideology, which is deemed as squishy and un-American. Americans want to "get 'er done". Thus, when the GOP speaks that language, they do well, but when it finally becomes obvious the GOP has not interest in getting things done correctly and is insane besides, Americans reject the GOP.
And those who note that Americans have rejected the GOP and are not accepting liberal ideology are not necessarily appealing for Dems to be more moderate. In fact, that's the worst thing Dems could do! When people say they are moderates, it doesn't mean they want politicians to be moderate -- it means they don't care what ideology politicians have as long as the government they give us runs efficiently and for the benefit of everyone and not just for those deemed "underserving" (whether they are a powerful few or those whom our Puritan heritage rejects as "non-elect"). In fact, we must remember that the small-p-pragmatism of Americans is one capitalization away from being big-P Pragmatism which is the philosophy at the base of modern liberalism in many ways.
Certainly, if we liberals believe our approach to government is what actually will benefit people, then we should be pushing for Dems to be more liberal. And if people see that we really do believe that our ideas work, then they will be more likely to trust us with government and embrace liberalism themselves. But if we Dems are always afraid that people will reject liberalism, then people will think "I don't really care about ideology -- yet liberal Dems think that I won't support them if they are liberal -- why? do they think their ideas won't work? 'cause that's all I care about -- and if liberals think their ideas won't work, then why should I think they'll work?" E.g. if we liberals "compromise" on health care, not only will it result in an awful bill that will make things worse for many people (who will blame "Democratic health care 'reform'" for their problems, since no GOoPer will vote for the bill), but it will send a signal to people that we don't believe in our own agenda so why should people believe in our agenda?
To me, though, the most bizarre thing, however, is the complete rejection in certain liberal circles of the importance of Democrats actually running government cleanly and efficiently. If Dems would actually listen to complaints about "gummint", what they would discover is that the actual complaints (as opposed to how GOP demagogues use the anger people have at gummint to promote their own agenda) relate rather simply to government not working well. It doesn't make me Tom Friedman or Bobo Brooks when I point out that if government runs smoother, Americans (who don't really care about ideology but rather just want things to get done) will be more likely to support the party of big government, e.g. (liberal) Democrats. And many of these aspects of government that cause everyday people annoyance are local government issues (which may involve corrupt local Democratic political machines)
So shouldn't having (local) government run smoothly be a top priority for Democrats? Shouldn't cleaning our own house be a priority? And shouldn't making liberalism work for people rather than compromising on it be a priority? And why are these to me self-evident priorities so controversial in certain liberal circles?
*
Update -- as you all know by now, no doubt, Christie did win. So my concern was on the mark. Of course, this will be spun as "see a Republican won even in liberal NJ". Of course this ignores that, on a federal level, the Dems. actually gained two seats and if it weren't for Obama, Christie would likely have won by a greater margin, but the spin will still be that this is a loss for Obama. The problem, though, is that centrist Dems will believe this spin and try to push for "compromises" with the GOP "because that's what the 2009 elections showed voters want" -- and these compromises will be disasters for which no-one in the GOP votes anyway -- thus, in 2010 the spin will be about disastrous Dem legislation. Of course, the usual trolls, e.g. at Sadly, No! are predicting a GOP sweep in 2010 and the usual moonbats are sanguine about a Dem victory then. But this just repeats the sentiments about this election. Nu? How do we Dems in the base make sure that the usual suspects in the wanker caucus don't wank us out of a good result in 2010?
Consider the response to (as well as what prompted) this bit of Niebelungeheit on my part. Do liberals really think that the Dems are guaranteed the kind of establishment in-party status the GOP (in spite of Carter and Clinton) enjoyed from some time in the 1970s until 2006? Right now, of course, the GOP is really bringing out the crazy, but what happens if the GOP gets its act together? To me, the response to Christie blowing a 16 point lead should not be "see GOoPer trolls, the GOP is safe" but rather "what if the GOP gets its act together (which is a big if) and the next Christie-type doesn't blow his lead? how do we prevent this from happening?"
I think part of the problem is that we liberals are mainly used to hearing this kind of question from the so-called liberal media which always claims the solution is for us to moderate and compromise with the GOP even more to remain "in the mainstream". So it is perhaps understandable that when a Niebelung raises such questions, they would raise red flags and so many liberals would immediately get defensive about what is being suggested.
But there is still in the responses to my comment a strong element of misunderstanding of the American psyche, which misunderstanding by the Democrats has hurt us -- and the GOP was able to do so well, until they started to unravel and until it was so obvious what a disaster Bush & CO were, because they understood this aspect of the American psyche. The thing is that Americans are profoundly anti-ideological. The key American question is "what's the big idea?" -- and not as a matter of curiosity about the ideology but as a matter of scorn that any big idea can be good. Our mindset is not "that's a great idea" but rather "get 'er done". And the GOP was able to speak that language very well, which is why they were able to do so well for so long. Of course, it must be added that while the American distrust of ideology is almost positivistic -- Americans are not positivists ... their distaste for ideological thought extends to a distaste of questioning their own ideological assumptions, which leads to a certain traditionalism and maintenance of those assumptions, including a strong tendency toward religiosity, absent in, e.g., the more 'ideological' Continent.
The problem Democrats have -- whether its Blue Dogs trying to be "moderates" in order to appeal to the moderate, non-ideological electorate or it's liberal Dems who think that appeals for Dems to reach out to moderates are necessarily appeals to moderate -- is that we tend to assume people are ideologically consistent when, in fact, they don't give a darn about ideology, which is deemed as squishy and un-American. Americans want to "get 'er done". Thus, when the GOP speaks that language, they do well, but when it finally becomes obvious the GOP has not interest in getting things done correctly and is insane besides, Americans reject the GOP.
And those who note that Americans have rejected the GOP and are not accepting liberal ideology are not necessarily appealing for Dems to be more moderate. In fact, that's the worst thing Dems could do! When people say they are moderates, it doesn't mean they want politicians to be moderate -- it means they don't care what ideology politicians have as long as the government they give us runs efficiently and for the benefit of everyone and not just for those deemed "underserving" (whether they are a powerful few or those whom our Puritan heritage rejects as "non-elect"). In fact, we must remember that the small-p-pragmatism of Americans is one capitalization away from being big-P Pragmatism which is the philosophy at the base of modern liberalism in many ways.
Certainly, if we liberals believe our approach to government is what actually will benefit people, then we should be pushing for Dems to be more liberal. And if people see that we really do believe that our ideas work, then they will be more likely to trust us with government and embrace liberalism themselves. But if we Dems are always afraid that people will reject liberalism, then people will think "I don't really care about ideology -- yet liberal Dems think that I won't support them if they are liberal -- why? do they think their ideas won't work? 'cause that's all I care about -- and if liberals think their ideas won't work, then why should I think they'll work?" E.g. if we liberals "compromise" on health care, not only will it result in an awful bill that will make things worse for many people (who will blame "Democratic health care 'reform'" for their problems, since no GOoPer will vote for the bill), but it will send a signal to people that we don't believe in our own agenda so why should people believe in our agenda?
To me, though, the most bizarre thing, however, is the complete rejection in certain liberal circles of the importance of Democrats actually running government cleanly and efficiently. If Dems would actually listen to complaints about "gummint", what they would discover is that the actual complaints (as opposed to how GOP demagogues use the anger people have at gummint to promote their own agenda) relate rather simply to government not working well. It doesn't make me Tom Friedman or Bobo Brooks when I point out that if government runs smoother, Americans (who don't really care about ideology but rather just want things to get done) will be more likely to support the party of big government, e.g. (liberal) Democrats. And many of these aspects of government that cause everyday people annoyance are local government issues (which may involve corrupt local Democratic political machines)
So shouldn't having (local) government run smoothly be a top priority for Democrats? Shouldn't cleaning our own house be a priority? And shouldn't making liberalism work for people rather than compromising on it be a priority? And why are these to me self-evident priorities so controversial in certain liberal circles?
*
Update -- as you all know by now, no doubt, Christie did win. So my concern was on the mark. Of course, this will be spun as "see a Republican won even in liberal NJ". Of course this ignores that, on a federal level, the Dems. actually gained two seats and if it weren't for Obama, Christie would likely have won by a greater margin, but the spin will still be that this is a loss for Obama. The problem, though, is that centrist Dems will believe this spin and try to push for "compromises" with the GOP "because that's what the 2009 elections showed voters want" -- and these compromises will be disasters for which no-one in the GOP votes anyway -- thus, in 2010 the spin will be about disastrous Dem legislation. Of course, the usual trolls, e.g. at Sadly, No! are predicting a GOP sweep in 2010 and the usual moonbats are sanguine about a Dem victory then. But this just repeats the sentiments about this election. Nu? How do we Dems in the base make sure that the usual suspects in the wanker caucus don't wank us out of a good result in 2010?
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Thoughts ...
I can't get into any detail about what brings on these questions, but recent events do have me thinking ...
Supposed person A allegedly assaults or harasses person B. It somehow seems inappropriate to bring up any past history of B's behavior, etc. as if person A did assault or harass person B, it is still a crime or tort (depending on the nature of the action) no matter "what kind of person" is person B. However, naturally person A will have his/her own version of what happened. And whether or not this version is reasonable (and hence casts a reasonable doubt in person B's story or even whether one judges person A's story to have the preponderance of evidence in favor of it) depends very greatly on what kind of person B is, doesn't it?
How does one set up a system that still presumes innocence of the accused yet also ensures accusers that they won't effectively be put on trial? For that matter how do you set up a system that presumes innocence of the accused yet allows both "sweet innocent" victims and well "not so innocent" victims to both receive justice since their innocence is anyway not the issue if the accused really did what s/he is accused of doing (although it does point to how reasonable the doubts raised by the accused are).
*
How much can our society expect us to be lawyers? In a trial or hearing lawyers may ask you questions and depending on how you answer, this can effect the outcome of the trial/hearing. So of course you will get asked to remember precisely things which happened a long time ago, and failure to answer questions could result in contempt and not phrasing answers 100% "correctly" could result in your testimony being construed to mean something completely different than what you meant.
Now a lawyer would know when certain events occur to immediately start writing things down. But what of us non-lawyers? Does the legal system expect us to go through life notebook in hand, pausing to write everything down -- even when such writing things down could then be used against us: "why were you writing down what you did rather than responding to the problem at hand?"? Does the legal system expect everyone to know exactly what a lawyer would find important to remember and thus to write everything down? Does the legal system expect us to always use proper-lawyer language to express ourselves and consider it ok that if a layman uses non-legal language that his/her words will get misconstrued by the court?
Of course, in Jewish law, this is all simplified -- everybody is expected to be a lawyer (and my previous kasha above is also simplified in Jewish law -- you can make an end-run around presumption of innocence in such sensitive cases because often the accused would at least be patently guilty of violating a fence around the law). But we do not live under Mosaic law (perhaps the religious right is correct and we should? but somehow I don't think they'd like living under such a law ... at least in the sense that I am talking about here) -- if our society expects us to all be lawyers, why isn't being a lawyer part of high school? Why do you have to go to law school to be a lawyer even if, once the legal apparatus is put into motion, we will be expected to use the correct legal terms, have written exactly the kinds of notes of the event in question that a lawyer would write, etc.?
Supposed person A allegedly assaults or harasses person B. It somehow seems inappropriate to bring up any past history of B's behavior, etc. as if person A did assault or harass person B, it is still a crime or tort (depending on the nature of the action) no matter "what kind of person" is person B. However, naturally person A will have his/her own version of what happened. And whether or not this version is reasonable (and hence casts a reasonable doubt in person B's story or even whether one judges person A's story to have the preponderance of evidence in favor of it) depends very greatly on what kind of person B is, doesn't it?
How does one set up a system that still presumes innocence of the accused yet also ensures accusers that they won't effectively be put on trial? For that matter how do you set up a system that presumes innocence of the accused yet allows both "sweet innocent" victims and well "not so innocent" victims to both receive justice since their innocence is anyway not the issue if the accused really did what s/he is accused of doing (although it does point to how reasonable the doubts raised by the accused are).
*
How much can our society expect us to be lawyers? In a trial or hearing lawyers may ask you questions and depending on how you answer, this can effect the outcome of the trial/hearing. So of course you will get asked to remember precisely things which happened a long time ago, and failure to answer questions could result in contempt and not phrasing answers 100% "correctly" could result in your testimony being construed to mean something completely different than what you meant.
Now a lawyer would know when certain events occur to immediately start writing things down. But what of us non-lawyers? Does the legal system expect us to go through life notebook in hand, pausing to write everything down -- even when such writing things down could then be used against us: "why were you writing down what you did rather than responding to the problem at hand?"? Does the legal system expect everyone to know exactly what a lawyer would find important to remember and thus to write everything down? Does the legal system expect us to always use proper-lawyer language to express ourselves and consider it ok that if a layman uses non-legal language that his/her words will get misconstrued by the court?
Of course, in Jewish law, this is all simplified -- everybody is expected to be a lawyer (and my previous kasha above is also simplified in Jewish law -- you can make an end-run around presumption of innocence in such sensitive cases because often the accused would at least be patently guilty of violating a fence around the law). But we do not live under Mosaic law (perhaps the religious right is correct and we should? but somehow I don't think they'd like living under such a law ... at least in the sense that I am talking about here) -- if our society expects us to all be lawyers, why isn't being a lawyer part of high school? Why do you have to go to law school to be a lawyer even if, once the legal apparatus is put into motion, we will be expected to use the correct legal terms, have written exactly the kinds of notes of the event in question that a lawyer would write, etc.?
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Perverse Incentives in Capitalism
Conservatives like to talk about perverse incentives due to government interventions in the free market, but I would like to propose that free market capitalism has an inherent perverse incentive against progress.
What is the underlying justification of large rewards in capitalism? Roughly that high risks must be balanced out by high rewards otherwise people won't take risks.
But whom does capitalism tend to reward then? People who act to optimize expected utility (e.g. people who will take risks because the reward makes the risky action have a positive expected utility) -- i.e. people who are Bayesian rational actors. I.e. capitalism awards (a certain kind of) rationality. And since capitalists dictate the agenda of private enterprise in a capitalist system (money always has strings), the nature of private enterprise in free market capitalism is at best (e.g. when the system actually does function -- lately we've learned a lot about market failure, haven't we?) that of a certain kind of rational actor.
However, as GB Shaw (?) pointed out, all progress depends not on reasonable people but on unreasonable people. Yet capitalists are, according to a very specific definition, reasonable people.
So what does this say about the relation between progress and capitalism? Consider, for example, who got richer -- the true innovators of the modern PC age or Bill Gates? Free market capitalism, like any other evolutionary system, at best only sufficiently rewards successful innovations -- Apples' Steves have been amply and sufficiently rewarded, but who really got rich from making our society computer-saturated and how? And what are the implications of "who won" in terms of whether we really are in a technologically optimal environment?
Of course, the real innovations were produced by gummint anyway, weren't they?
Meanwhile, a bit ago on a comments thread at Eschaton I observed (in re. my uncle who has settled in Finland) that for all the emphasis glibertarians give to "the rugged individual", it seems that people who truly march to their own drummer thrive best in more socialistic societies in which they don't have to worry so much about the rat race but rather can do what they want to do at their own pace.
Which society gives individuals more freedom? In which society is being the sort of unreasonable person on whom progress depends rewarded rather than having rewards flow to Bayesian rational agents? And where do so many neat technical things come from anyway?
Hmmm ... I wonder ...
What is the underlying justification of large rewards in capitalism? Roughly that high risks must be balanced out by high rewards otherwise people won't take risks.
But whom does capitalism tend to reward then? People who act to optimize expected utility (e.g. people who will take risks because the reward makes the risky action have a positive expected utility) -- i.e. people who are Bayesian rational actors. I.e. capitalism awards (a certain kind of) rationality. And since capitalists dictate the agenda of private enterprise in a capitalist system (money always has strings), the nature of private enterprise in free market capitalism is at best (e.g. when the system actually does function -- lately we've learned a lot about market failure, haven't we?) that of a certain kind of rational actor.
However, as GB Shaw (?) pointed out, all progress depends not on reasonable people but on unreasonable people. Yet capitalists are, according to a very specific definition, reasonable people.
So what does this say about the relation between progress and capitalism? Consider, for example, who got richer -- the true innovators of the modern PC age or Bill Gates? Free market capitalism, like any other evolutionary system, at best only sufficiently rewards successful innovations -- Apples' Steves have been amply and sufficiently rewarded, but who really got rich from making our society computer-saturated and how? And what are the implications of "who won" in terms of whether we really are in a technologically optimal environment?
Of course, the real innovations were produced by gummint anyway, weren't they?
Meanwhile, a bit ago on a comments thread at Eschaton I observed (in re. my uncle who has settled in Finland) that for all the emphasis glibertarians give to "the rugged individual", it seems that people who truly march to their own drummer thrive best in more socialistic societies in which they don't have to worry so much about the rat race but rather can do what they want to do at their own pace.
Which society gives individuals more freedom? In which society is being the sort of unreasonable person on whom progress depends rewarded rather than having rewards flow to Bayesian rational agents? And where do so many neat technical things come from anyway?
Hmmm ... I wonder ...
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Blog Assignment
Since I am so busy teaching, I've not had time to blog, I'll give you all (all 5 of you who read this blog) a Yom Kippur themed essay assignment: discuss the prelude to the Kol Nidre where we just declare it lawful to pray with our fellow sinners in light of Blu Greenberg's statement "where there is a Rabbinic will, there is a Halachic way" and relate Jewish conceptions of Halacha with Schopenhauer's concept of "will". Relate your discussion to the health care debate, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict or some other current issue in either Jewish or secular spheres.
Friday, September 25, 2009
A Pre-Mortem on Health Care Reform
I hope that events prove me wrong and that we'll finally have health care reform in this country, but currently I am not sanguine. It seems that health care reform is the Lucy's football of American politics: every so often Democrats or even liberal Republicans (remember them?) will try to kick that football only to have it yanked from under them, so they fall flat on their faces.
This time around, it may be even worse, in fact. The Dems may be so dedicated to actually "doing something" as well as being bipartisan and compromising that they will pass a bill that will actually make things worse: forcing people who can ill afford to buy health care to purchase health care while doing little to prevent health care costs from rising due to increased demand (and decreased demand elasticity) following a health insurance purchase mandate. Of course, in spite of efforts at bipartisanship, no GOoPer will vote for the health care bill and a few Dems. will vote against it -- so the bill will be labeled as "a partisan Dem. bill that was foisted upon us by the left against bipartisan opposition" -- and it will be so used as a cudgel against future progressive reform even if the left doesn't actually like the final bill!
Some Dems. think any health care reform will be good politically? Well not if you are forcing your base to purchase something they can't afford, are proving every GOP fear mongering talking point about progressive "deform" correct and also screwing small business over (with an employer mandate) besides. BTW, while real health care reform will help small businesses because they won't have to struggle to hire people when they can't afford to provide health insurance for employees, an employer mandate will screw over the same people for whom "socialized medicine" is the one bit of "socialism" that has already turned glibertarian small businessfolk into screaming dirty hippies. So quenching a move left amongst main street businessfolk, screwing over young, healthy, underemployed people who are the base of the Dem. party, etc., is good politics?
Of course all of this just points to the underlying problem with true health care reform: it is indeed a giant leap. And Americans, by and large, are a phlegmatic people (our heritage is rooted in the phlegm of England's Hobbits) who don't trust large leaps, unless the leaps involve Empire (e.g. colonizing and killing people of a more dusky hue for fun and profit). Normally our Anglo-American phlegm serves us well -- it keeps us from disastrous changes that could upset our healthy and liberty-full democratic-republican system. But sometimes it hurts us.
In the case of health care reform, dirty hippies like me want us to leap into socialized medicine or at least single payer or (probably better) some German-style hybrid system. But that is too big of a leap for leap-fearing Americans. The problem is that health care reform is a leap across a chasm. So the tendency to simply cut the leap in half will cause us to fall into the chasm of making health care more expensive with mandates, etc.
Indeed, the whole argument for half-way measures is silly: health insurance is expensive because of adverse selection. Ok. But the solution to this is to force young, healthy to buy health insurance they can't afford (otherwise they would likely have bought it by now?)? And if they can't afford it, maybe, just maybe (if the fiscal hawks don't get too penny wise and pound foolish) we'll subsidize them to buy insurance and thus subsidize the health care of sicker folk?
Doesn't that sound a little foolish? Why subsidize people to subsidize insurers to pay for health care? Why not just expand existing social medicine programs to cover more and more people?
Americans are afraid of big leaps. When we do adopt progressive agenda items, it is often because they are targeted to solve specific problems, and Americans love getting things done and solving problems. For example, even if FDR signed onto the Share our Wealth concept, no way he could get it done. Instead he was able to pass an alphabet soup of agencies that addressed specific needs (both to employ people and to deal with deferred infrastructure building). LBJ was not able to get us nationalized health insurance, but he was able to have social medicine that addressed specific needs: e.g. Medicare and Medicaid.
Similarly, if we want socialized medicine, there is no way that leaping into it will work, as the political winds in a country so afraid of leaping (even if a majority of people like the idea of a leap in theory) to anything except Empire building will cause any leap to either be thwarted entirely or turned into a leap half-way across a chasm that will only land us into a pit. What we should do instead is expand the socialized medicine programs we have to address specific shortcomings in our medical system, thus leading on a path toward the nationally socialized system beloved by us dirty hippies.
Evolution man! Not revolution! That's the way to go. Although if you do go for revolution, don't go half-way. If you want to catch or kick a football, you gotta put yourself into the procedure. Otherwise the football will just hit your fingers and toes and break them.
This time around, it may be even worse, in fact. The Dems may be so dedicated to actually "doing something" as well as being bipartisan and compromising that they will pass a bill that will actually make things worse: forcing people who can ill afford to buy health care to purchase health care while doing little to prevent health care costs from rising due to increased demand (and decreased demand elasticity) following a health insurance purchase mandate. Of course, in spite of efforts at bipartisanship, no GOoPer will vote for the health care bill and a few Dems. will vote against it -- so the bill will be labeled as "a partisan Dem. bill that was foisted upon us by the left against bipartisan opposition" -- and it will be so used as a cudgel against future progressive reform even if the left doesn't actually like the final bill!
Some Dems. think any health care reform will be good politically? Well not if you are forcing your base to purchase something they can't afford, are proving every GOP fear mongering talking point about progressive "deform" correct and also screwing small business over (with an employer mandate) besides. BTW, while real health care reform will help small businesses because they won't have to struggle to hire people when they can't afford to provide health insurance for employees, an employer mandate will screw over the same people for whom "socialized medicine" is the one bit of "socialism" that has already turned glibertarian small businessfolk into screaming dirty hippies. So quenching a move left amongst main street businessfolk, screwing over young, healthy, underemployed people who are the base of the Dem. party, etc., is good politics?
Of course all of this just points to the underlying problem with true health care reform: it is indeed a giant leap. And Americans, by and large, are a phlegmatic people (our heritage is rooted in the phlegm of England's Hobbits) who don't trust large leaps, unless the leaps involve Empire (e.g. colonizing and killing people of a more dusky hue for fun and profit). Normally our Anglo-American phlegm serves us well -- it keeps us from disastrous changes that could upset our healthy and liberty-full democratic-republican system. But sometimes it hurts us.
In the case of health care reform, dirty hippies like me want us to leap into socialized medicine or at least single payer or (probably better) some German-style hybrid system. But that is too big of a leap for leap-fearing Americans. The problem is that health care reform is a leap across a chasm. So the tendency to simply cut the leap in half will cause us to fall into the chasm of making health care more expensive with mandates, etc.
Indeed, the whole argument for half-way measures is silly: health insurance is expensive because of adverse selection. Ok. But the solution to this is to force young, healthy to buy health insurance they can't afford (otherwise they would likely have bought it by now?)? And if they can't afford it, maybe, just maybe (if the fiscal hawks don't get too penny wise and pound foolish) we'll subsidize them to buy insurance and thus subsidize the health care of sicker folk?
Doesn't that sound a little foolish? Why subsidize people to subsidize insurers to pay for health care? Why not just expand existing social medicine programs to cover more and more people?
Americans are afraid of big leaps. When we do adopt progressive agenda items, it is often because they are targeted to solve specific problems, and Americans love getting things done and solving problems. For example, even if FDR signed onto the Share our Wealth concept, no way he could get it done. Instead he was able to pass an alphabet soup of agencies that addressed specific needs (both to employ people and to deal with deferred infrastructure building). LBJ was not able to get us nationalized health insurance, but he was able to have social medicine that addressed specific needs: e.g. Medicare and Medicaid.
Similarly, if we want socialized medicine, there is no way that leaping into it will work, as the political winds in a country so afraid of leaping (even if a majority of people like the idea of a leap in theory) to anything except Empire building will cause any leap to either be thwarted entirely or turned into a leap half-way across a chasm that will only land us into a pit. What we should do instead is expand the socialized medicine programs we have to address specific shortcomings in our medical system, thus leading on a path toward the nationally socialized system beloved by us dirty hippies.
Evolution man! Not revolution! That's the way to go. Although if you do go for revolution, don't go half-way. If you want to catch or kick a football, you gotta put yourself into the procedure. Otherwise the football will just hit your fingers and toes and break them.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Commentwhoring
Check out my comments to this post in which I question this whole ACORN pseudo-scandal, hypothesize about the identity of the vines I saw growing in semi-abandoned buildings near the Poe House in Baltimore, etc.
