"Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you" - Jesus Christ (Luke 17:21).
What does that mean to you?
Sunday, November 03, 2013
Saturday, November 02, 2013
Good Words
"I simply cannot stand with a Party where its most extreme element promote hate and division amongst people. Nothing about my platform has, nor will it change. The government shutdown was simply the straw that broke the camels back. I guess being an American just isn’t good enough anymore… I refuse to be part of an extremist movement in the GOP that only appears to thrive on fear and hate mongering of anyone and everyone who doesn’t walk their line.” (Jason Thigpen, Congressional Candidate for North Carolina's 3rd District).
According to Charlie Cook, this is an R+10 district so he will likely not defeat Walter B. Jones Jr. Nevertheless, he will pull moderate voters his way if he ends up being the nominee for the Democrats. We do have to start somewhere in that state and what better place in a deep red district. And it flies in the face of conservative "logic," right? I thought everyone was running away from the president and the Democrats. What happened?!!?
According to Charlie Cook, this is an R+10 district so he will likely not defeat Walter B. Jones Jr. Nevertheless, he will pull moderate voters his way if he ends up being the nominee for the Democrats. We do have to start somewhere in that state and what better place in a deep red district. And it flies in the face of conservative "logic," right? I thought everyone was running away from the president and the Democrats. What happened?!!?
Yawn
I'm with Joan Walsh on the latest "hyperventilating," as she puts it, about how incompetent the president is at doing his job. The people that are attempting to stoke this are the same ones that hate him anyway so for me it's a giant snoozefest. Remember how wrong they were about Benghazi and the IRS? Yeah, I think I'll resist my liberal urge to try to be sympathetic to them and reflective and simple ignore it.
In a few weeks, they'll be on to something else.
But what I will do is point out a few interesting pieces on the subject of the ACA. The first one is by Jason Linkins over at HuffPO which really puts a fine tooth comb to the "If you like your health insurance, you get to keep it" line that has elicited so much adolescent bloviation that it's hard for me to keep track of it all.
The other part of the sentence that's sitting there trying to be all razzle-dazzle instead of attaching itself to its simple meaning is the word "like." A lot of people like their health insurance plans for different reasons, but one primary reason so many people "like" their plan is that they like the low, low price of the premium. Of course, as they say, "You get what you pay for," and the insurance market is no different. There are many insurance plans with eminently likeable costs that are not so likeable once you start using the plan. Some cheap plans offer only high-deductible catastrophic coverage. Other cheap plans have lifetime caps on coverage -- which means that if you suffer a major injury or illness that requires long-term or very costly medical care, your insurance company is eventually going to hit the cap and leave you holding the bag and facing the prospect of disastrous debt.
One of the biggest mistakes the Obama administration made was to not educate the public on just how crappy their plans were. Take note of the Jonathan Chait link in the piece as well and read it. Both Linkins and Chait summarize my thoughts quite on this latest "outrage."
Of course, the problem here is really the individual market and that's explained quite well in this graphic from the Times. As I have stated previously, most of the country isn't going to care about this because it doesn't affect them. By the time the dust settles from these recent issues, everyone is going to be much better off. Here's a look at three people's experiences with the health care changes coming out of the individual market which I think is a fair and accurate assessment.
All of this has made me think again of a common misconception that has been perpetuated by the Right. They quite erroneously believe that the people that support the president view him as the perfect savior. We don't. They do this because when he makes mistakes they can gleefully exclaim, "Gotcha!" and then assert that EVERYTHING is then flawed about the president and his policies. This mindset isn't really all that surprising as that's how they actually are with their ideology. They are never wrong and to admit error means they have completely lost (also completely ridiculous). In addition, they can't stand the fact that he has succeeded at anything (they did the same thing with Bill Clinton) because they have nothing other than bloviation to offer.
So, again, we're back to where we always end up: adolescent behavior. The health care market is incredibly complex and the first guy through the wall that tries to fix our problems (President Obama) is going to get bloody through his own mistakes, those of others, and the unbelievably high level of out and out lying by his opponents. Give him credit for at least being bold enough to tackle this very difficult issue and help solve a long running problem. Rather than pile on as the Right is doing right now, they could be helpful.
As they continue with their n'yah n'ayhs, keep that in mind:)
But what I will do is point out a few interesting pieces on the subject of the ACA. The first one is by Jason Linkins over at HuffPO which really puts a fine tooth comb to the "If you like your health insurance, you get to keep it" line that has elicited so much adolescent bloviation that it's hard for me to keep track of it all.
The other part of the sentence that's sitting there trying to be all razzle-dazzle instead of attaching itself to its simple meaning is the word "like." A lot of people like their health insurance plans for different reasons, but one primary reason so many people "like" their plan is that they like the low, low price of the premium. Of course, as they say, "You get what you pay for," and the insurance market is no different. There are many insurance plans with eminently likeable costs that are not so likeable once you start using the plan. Some cheap plans offer only high-deductible catastrophic coverage. Other cheap plans have lifetime caps on coverage -- which means that if you suffer a major injury or illness that requires long-term or very costly medical care, your insurance company is eventually going to hit the cap and leave you holding the bag and facing the prospect of disastrous debt.
One of the biggest mistakes the Obama administration made was to not educate the public on just how crappy their plans were. Take note of the Jonathan Chait link in the piece as well and read it. Both Linkins and Chait summarize my thoughts quite on this latest "outrage."
Of course, the problem here is really the individual market and that's explained quite well in this graphic from the Times. As I have stated previously, most of the country isn't going to care about this because it doesn't affect them. By the time the dust settles from these recent issues, everyone is going to be much better off. Here's a look at three people's experiences with the health care changes coming out of the individual market which I think is a fair and accurate assessment.
All of this has made me think again of a common misconception that has been perpetuated by the Right. They quite erroneously believe that the people that support the president view him as the perfect savior. We don't. They do this because when he makes mistakes they can gleefully exclaim, "Gotcha!" and then assert that EVERYTHING is then flawed about the president and his policies. This mindset isn't really all that surprising as that's how they actually are with their ideology. They are never wrong and to admit error means they have completely lost (also completely ridiculous). In addition, they can't stand the fact that he has succeeded at anything (they did the same thing with Bill Clinton) because they have nothing other than bloviation to offer.
So, again, we're back to where we always end up: adolescent behavior. The health care market is incredibly complex and the first guy through the wall that tries to fix our problems (President Obama) is going to get bloody through his own mistakes, those of others, and the unbelievably high level of out and out lying by his opponents. Give him credit for at least being bold enough to tackle this very difficult issue and help solve a long running problem. Rather than pile on as the Right is doing right now, they could be helpful.
As they continue with their n'yah n'ayhs, keep that in mind:)
Friday, November 01, 2013
All Is Well!
23-year-old Paul Ciancia walked into the LA Airport this afternoon with his assault rifle and started shooting TSA agents before he himself was shot and taken into custody. Clearly mentally ill, Ciancia didn't stop to think that there are plenty of armed personnel all over the airport.
Weird. That's not what the right wing bloggers tell me. In fact, they post moonbat shit like this. Ah well, as long as nobody infringed on Ciancia's 2nd Amendment rights, all is well!
Weird. That's not what the right wing bloggers tell me. In fact, they post moonbat shit like this. Ah well, as long as nobody infringed on Ciancia's 2nd Amendment rights, all is well!
On Stiglitz: Part Ten
In the final chapter of his magnificent work, The Price of Inequality, Joseph Stiglitz details the steps we must take as a nation if we are to fix our economic problems. Before I get to some of those, though, it's very important to note that he sees two possibilities as potential catalysts for change. He defines these avenues after asking the question, "Is There Hope?"
The first possibility is that most Americans come to realize that they are being duped by the wealthy in this country. The biggest recipients of welfare in this country are the wealthy, not "lazy" poor people. Stiglitz has demonstrated this unequivocally throughout his book. Many wealthy and powerful people in this country have essentially brainwashed Americans into thinking that any sort of talk about inequality leads to communism, internment camps, and loss of freedom. Stiglitz hopes (and so do I) that people are going to wake up to this fact and call them on their bullshit. In many ways, they are the ones that are lazy and have become a drag on our society. Addressing inequality leads to a more efficient system of capitalism and, quite frankly, fairness. Americans are realizing this more and more every day that our system simply isn't fair and it needs to change. Sooner or later, they are going to demand it and we will have a sea change in Washington.
The second catalyst, and the one I see more likely in the near term, is that wealthy people themselves will come to realize that they can't enjoy their lifestyles if there is too great a degree of inequality. They also may act out of simple fear of the natives becoming too restless. Indeed, we see people like Nick Hanauer, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and Mark Zuckerberg expressing the need for change because it is in the wealthy's best interest. Stigliz sums up why this is so important.
Alex de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief elements of the peculiar genius of American society, something he called "self interest properly understood." The last two words were key. Everyone possesses self interest in a narrow sense: I want what's good for me right now! Self-interest "properly understood" is different. It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else's self interest-in other, to the common welfare-is in fact a precondition for one's ultimate well being (Adam Smith understood as much. See his The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759). See also Emma Rothschild and Amartya Sen, "Adam Smith's Economics," The Cambridge Companion to Adam Smith pp. 319-65, in particular p.347).
Tocqueville was not suggesting that there was anything noble or idealistic about this outlook. Rather, he was suggesting the opposite: it was a mark of American pragmatism. Those canny Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other guy isn't just good for the soul; it's good for business.
Again, we are talking about economic efficiency here, not just fairness. Past business leaders in our nation truly understood this. Henry Ford, for example, paid his employees more money so they could afford to buy his cars. Our economy works at top speed when the engine that fuels it (the middle class) has more money. This is exactly why we need government policy that helps them to this end.
So what changes need to be made? Here are few of the many action items Stiglitz lists.
Rent seeking needs to end immediately through curbing the financial sector of our economy. The revenue we gain from this will be able to fund many programs that can help the poor and the middle class. We need to make the banks more transparent and much smaller than they are now. No more "too big or too interconnected to fail." No more predatory lending, excessive bonuses that encourage risk taking, and offshore banking centers that essentially promote tax evasion. Speaking of taxes, the entire code needs to be reformed to a more progressive system with few loopholes for corporations. I have no problem lowering the statutory rate if we lose the loopholes and far too many breaks our nation's corporations get.
In tandem with this, we have to help out the rest, as Stiglitz puts it. We have to improve access to education so we can be more competitive in the age of globalization. We should ordinary Americans save money by creating government incentive and matching programs, for example. Continuing our efforts to have health care for all will go a long way to helping people save money. Changes to government programs like Social Security need to also be made in order to strengthen efforts that have already proven to be successful in reducing poverty.
We need a monetary policy that focuses on employment and growth as well as inflation. Our trade imbalances need to be corrected further than they already are. Our goal should be full employment. Labor needs to be thought of in a completely different way than it is today. With the reality of cheap labor markets around the world, our nation's workers need to be re-educated and put on different career paths. Our growth agenda should be centered on public investment which has shown to yield fantastic returns in our nation's history (the GI Bill, research, public works).
As of right now, we are being held back by myths and ideological intransigence fueled by adolescent hubris. Those who choose to champion these lies (and there really is no other way to put it nicely) are essentially rooting for our country to fail just so they won't be proved wrong. The 1% of this nation, and in particular the financial sector, are using these people to maintain their lifestyles. Reading through my previous entries on Stigilitz, the task is very simple.
It is now time to stop them.
The first possibility is that most Americans come to realize that they are being duped by the wealthy in this country. The biggest recipients of welfare in this country are the wealthy, not "lazy" poor people. Stiglitz has demonstrated this unequivocally throughout his book. Many wealthy and powerful people in this country have essentially brainwashed Americans into thinking that any sort of talk about inequality leads to communism, internment camps, and loss of freedom. Stiglitz hopes (and so do I) that people are going to wake up to this fact and call them on their bullshit. In many ways, they are the ones that are lazy and have become a drag on our society. Addressing inequality leads to a more efficient system of capitalism and, quite frankly, fairness. Americans are realizing this more and more every day that our system simply isn't fair and it needs to change. Sooner or later, they are going to demand it and we will have a sea change in Washington.
The second catalyst, and the one I see more likely in the near term, is that wealthy people themselves will come to realize that they can't enjoy their lifestyles if there is too great a degree of inequality. They also may act out of simple fear of the natives becoming too restless. Indeed, we see people like Nick Hanauer, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and Mark Zuckerberg expressing the need for change because it is in the wealthy's best interest. Stigliz sums up why this is so important.
Alex de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief elements of the peculiar genius of American society, something he called "self interest properly understood." The last two words were key. Everyone possesses self interest in a narrow sense: I want what's good for me right now! Self-interest "properly understood" is different. It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else's self interest-in other, to the common welfare-is in fact a precondition for one's ultimate well being (Adam Smith understood as much. See his The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759). See also Emma Rothschild and Amartya Sen, "Adam Smith's Economics," The Cambridge Companion to Adam Smith pp. 319-65, in particular p.347).
Tocqueville was not suggesting that there was anything noble or idealistic about this outlook. Rather, he was suggesting the opposite: it was a mark of American pragmatism. Those canny Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other guy isn't just good for the soul; it's good for business.
Again, we are talking about economic efficiency here, not just fairness. Past business leaders in our nation truly understood this. Henry Ford, for example, paid his employees more money so they could afford to buy his cars. Our economy works at top speed when the engine that fuels it (the middle class) has more money. This is exactly why we need government policy that helps them to this end.
So what changes need to be made? Here are few of the many action items Stiglitz lists.
Rent seeking needs to end immediately through curbing the financial sector of our economy. The revenue we gain from this will be able to fund many programs that can help the poor and the middle class. We need to make the banks more transparent and much smaller than they are now. No more "too big or too interconnected to fail." No more predatory lending, excessive bonuses that encourage risk taking, and offshore banking centers that essentially promote tax evasion. Speaking of taxes, the entire code needs to be reformed to a more progressive system with few loopholes for corporations. I have no problem lowering the statutory rate if we lose the loopholes and far too many breaks our nation's corporations get.
In tandem with this, we have to help out the rest, as Stiglitz puts it. We have to improve access to education so we can be more competitive in the age of globalization. We should ordinary Americans save money by creating government incentive and matching programs, for example. Continuing our efforts to have health care for all will go a long way to helping people save money. Changes to government programs like Social Security need to also be made in order to strengthen efforts that have already proven to be successful in reducing poverty.
We need a monetary policy that focuses on employment and growth as well as inflation. Our trade imbalances need to be corrected further than they already are. Our goal should be full employment. Labor needs to be thought of in a completely different way than it is today. With the reality of cheap labor markets around the world, our nation's workers need to be re-educated and put on different career paths. Our growth agenda should be centered on public investment which has shown to yield fantastic returns in our nation's history (the GI Bill, research, public works).
As of right now, we are being held back by myths and ideological intransigence fueled by adolescent hubris. Those who choose to champion these lies (and there really is no other way to put it nicely) are essentially rooting for our country to fail just so they won't be proved wrong. The 1% of this nation, and in particular the financial sector, are using these people to maintain their lifestyles. Reading through my previous entries on Stigilitz, the task is very simple.
It is now time to stop them.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Demons in St. Louis
It's hard to believe that my point of origin in this country had one of the most famous exorcisms in history. Apparently, people are still talking about it.
One man described living near the suburban St. Louis home where the 13-year-old boy arrived in the winter of 1949 (his Lutheran mother was a St. Louis native who married a Catholic). Another said she was a distant cousin of Father William Bowdern, who led the exorcism ritual after consulting with the archbishop of St. Louis but remained publicly silent about his experiences — though he did tell Allen it was "the real thing.
I've heard the stories myself. My grandparents were in their 30s with two little girls in West County when it all happened. Everyone was talking about it and everyone believed it. Father William Bowdern, who performed the exorcism, was viewed as a savior to the community for many years.
He drove the devil out of the Gateway to the West!
One man described living near the suburban St. Louis home where the 13-year-old boy arrived in the winter of 1949 (his Lutheran mother was a St. Louis native who married a Catholic). Another said she was a distant cousin of Father William Bowdern, who led the exorcism ritual after consulting with the archbishop of St. Louis but remained publicly silent about his experiences — though he did tell Allen it was "the real thing.
I've heard the stories myself. My grandparents were in their 30s with two little girls in West County when it all happened. Everyone was talking about it and everyone believed it. Father William Bowdern, who performed the exorcism, was viewed as a savior to the community for many years.
He drove the devil out of the Gateway to the West!
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Explaining the Zombie Apocalypse
It's Halloween and that means it's Zombie Apocalypse Time, and AMC's The Walking Dead is once again wildly popular. I stumbled upon an article that says that zombies are nothing to fear because bacteria, insects and animals would eat them alive. So to speak. David Mizejewski writes:
(Note: very minor spoilers ahead if you've never watched The Walking Dead.)
Competition
There are many types of bacteria that produce highly toxic poisons: botulinum, tetanus, staph, salmonella, and so on. The Walking Dead infection could conceivably produce a toxin that renders zombie flesh repellent to all common bacteria. Animals chomping on them would immediately spit out the distasteful flesh.
That would give the zombie infection a huge competitive advantage: they would have human corpses all to themselves.
Propagation
Viruses and bacteria propagate through the air, through food or by exchange of fluids. We know everyone in The Walking Dead is infected, but we don't know exactly how the infection spreads. We know a bite is required to turn a person directly (perhaps by delivering a lethal dose of the toxin). We know amputation can save a bite victim. We know everyone has either been drenched in zombie blood or has been in physical contact with someone who has. So it seems the infection is passed through fluid exchange.
The initial infection could have been through almost any means: toilet seats, unwashed lettuce, blood transfusion, super-soldier or immortality serum gone awry, a form of kuru transmitted by cannibalism, and so on. Anyone coming in contact with a carrier could be infected but would show no symptoms. Only when a carrier died would there be any clue that something was going on. The zombie plague could be worldwide before anyone had a clue.
One hurdle virulent blood-borne micro-organisms face is that when they kill their hosts they stop propagating. That's why ebola hasn't killed us all.
Not the zombie bug. Its carriers get up after they die and continue to spread the infection. It's an ingenious solution to the propagation problem. But how do zombies get up and walk around?
First, what's the energy source for the zombie? There's no blood circulation or respiration (zombies work just fine riddled with bullets), so there's no way to transport oxygen and nutrients to the muscles. That implies that the zombie bug is consuming the body of the zombie to provide energy.
Second, how does the zombie know what to do? How does it coordinate a broken body well enough to walk on two legs?
The zombie bug itself must provide the energy to infected tissue, perhaps some form of adenosine-triphosphate that's toxic to bacteria, allowing the corpse's most basic functions to proceed without heart or lung function.
Given that energy source the corpse's reptilian brain, eyes, ears and muscles could still function to allow the zombie to ambulate and seek food. Higher-level cognition is absent because the zombie bug feasts on the gray matter of the brain to provide that energy (naturally).
A Reprieve?
As the infection consumes its hosts, eventually the zombie hordes will wither to motionless husks. At which point the zombie problem becomes manageable.
But as the the series has shown, the biggest problem isn't the zombies, but other survivors. If they continue to behave like backwoods survivalists and shoot anything that moves, they're all doomed to chaos and solitary death.
Though The Walking Dead is fiction, it shows how important collaboration and compromise are essential for survival in dire situations, regardless of whatever differences we have.
I just wish the zombies in the Tea Party could understand this...
The thought of being eaten alive is a natural fear, and when it's your own species doing the eating, it's even more terrifying.I think Mizejewski has it all wrong way: bacteria, insects, and wildlife aren't chowing down on zombies because the infection has a superior design. It elegantly solves the two biggest problems faced by micro-organisms: competition and propagation.
Relax. Next time you're lying in bed, unable to fall asleep thanks to the vague anxiety of half-rotten corpses munching on you in the dark, remember this: if there was ever a zombie uprising, wildlife would kick its ass.
(Note: very minor spoilers ahead if you've never watched The Walking Dead.)
Competition
There are many types of bacteria that produce highly toxic poisons: botulinum, tetanus, staph, salmonella, and so on. The Walking Dead infection could conceivably produce a toxin that renders zombie flesh repellent to all common bacteria. Animals chomping on them would immediately spit out the distasteful flesh.
That would give the zombie infection a huge competitive advantage: they would have human corpses all to themselves.
Propagation
Viruses and bacteria propagate through the air, through food or by exchange of fluids. We know everyone in The Walking Dead is infected, but we don't know exactly how the infection spreads. We know a bite is required to turn a person directly (perhaps by delivering a lethal dose of the toxin). We know amputation can save a bite victim. We know everyone has either been drenched in zombie blood or has been in physical contact with someone who has. So it seems the infection is passed through fluid exchange.
The initial infection could have been through almost any means: toilet seats, unwashed lettuce, blood transfusion, super-soldier or immortality serum gone awry, a form of kuru transmitted by cannibalism, and so on. Anyone coming in contact with a carrier could be infected but would show no symptoms. Only when a carrier died would there be any clue that something was going on. The zombie plague could be worldwide before anyone had a clue.
One hurdle virulent blood-borne micro-organisms face is that when they kill their hosts they stop propagating. That's why ebola hasn't killed us all.
Not the zombie bug. Its carriers get up after they die and continue to spread the infection. It's an ingenious solution to the propagation problem. But how do zombies get up and walk around?
First, what's the energy source for the zombie? There's no blood circulation or respiration (zombies work just fine riddled with bullets), so there's no way to transport oxygen and nutrients to the muscles. That implies that the zombie bug is consuming the body of the zombie to provide energy.
Second, how does the zombie know what to do? How does it coordinate a broken body well enough to walk on two legs?
The zombie bug itself must provide the energy to infected tissue, perhaps some form of adenosine-triphosphate that's toxic to bacteria, allowing the corpse's most basic functions to proceed without heart or lung function.
Given that energy source the corpse's reptilian brain, eyes, ears and muscles could still function to allow the zombie to ambulate and seek food. Higher-level cognition is absent because the zombie bug feasts on the gray matter of the brain to provide that energy (naturally).
A Reprieve?
As the infection consumes its hosts, eventually the zombie hordes will wither to motionless husks. At which point the zombie problem becomes manageable.
But as the the series has shown, the biggest problem isn't the zombies, but other survivors. If they continue to behave like backwoods survivalists and shoot anything that moves, they're all doomed to chaos and solitary death.
Though The Walking Dead is fiction, it shows how important collaboration and compromise are essential for survival in dire situations, regardless of whatever differences we have.
I just wish the zombies in the Tea Party could understand this...
Trouble in Paradise
I am continually assured by my friends on the right that everything is just fine with their party and if they continue to run ultra conservative candidates, they are going to win. Yet two recent AP stories (here and here) suggest otherwise.
From the first piece...
A slice of corporate America thinks tea partyers have overstayed their welcome in Washington and should be shown the door in next year's congressional elections. In what could be a sign of challenges to come across the country, two U.S. House races in Michigan mark a turnabout from several years of widely heralded contests in which right-flank candidates have tried — sometimes successfully — to unseat Republican incumbents they perceive as not being conservative enough.
In the Michigan races, longtime Republican businessmen are taking on two House incumbents — hardline conservative Reps. Justin Amash and Kerry Bentivolio — in GOP primaries. The 16-day partial government shutdown and the threatened national default are bringing to a head a lot of pent-up frustration over GOP insurgents roughing up the business community's agenda.
So now the primariers are going to be primaried? Hee hee hee...
It actually makes sense when you think about it. Once the money goes away from the Tea Party (because it's not really a grass roots movement), that will pretty much be it for them.
From the second piece...
A year after losing a presidential race many Republicans thought was winnable, the party arguably is in worse shape than before. The GOP is struggling to control tensions between its tea party and establishment wings and watching approval ratings sink to record lows. It's almost quaint to recall that soon after Mitt Romney lost to President Barack Obama, the Republican National Committee recommended only one policy change: endorsing an immigration overhaul, in hopes of attracting Hispanic voters.
That immigration bill is now struggling for life and attention in the Republican-run House. The bigger worry for many party leaders is the growing rift between business-oriented Republicans and the GOP's more ideological wing. Each accuses the other of bungling the debt ceiling and government shutdown dramas, widely seen as a major Republican embarrassment.
This would be why the mistakes made by the Obama administration in regards to the ACA will largely be ignored. The American people have come to realize in the last month that the Republicans are not helping out anyone and are, in fact, causing most of the problems we have as well as actively preventing our country from solving them.
And when you lose the National Review, well, then you really up shit crick...
From the first piece...
A slice of corporate America thinks tea partyers have overstayed their welcome in Washington and should be shown the door in next year's congressional elections. In what could be a sign of challenges to come across the country, two U.S. House races in Michigan mark a turnabout from several years of widely heralded contests in which right-flank candidates have tried — sometimes successfully — to unseat Republican incumbents they perceive as not being conservative enough.
In the Michigan races, longtime Republican businessmen are taking on two House incumbents — hardline conservative Reps. Justin Amash and Kerry Bentivolio — in GOP primaries. The 16-day partial government shutdown and the threatened national default are bringing to a head a lot of pent-up frustration over GOP insurgents roughing up the business community's agenda.
So now the primariers are going to be primaried? Hee hee hee...
It actually makes sense when you think about it. Once the money goes away from the Tea Party (because it's not really a grass roots movement), that will pretty much be it for them.
From the second piece...
A year after losing a presidential race many Republicans thought was winnable, the party arguably is in worse shape than before. The GOP is struggling to control tensions between its tea party and establishment wings and watching approval ratings sink to record lows. It's almost quaint to recall that soon after Mitt Romney lost to President Barack Obama, the Republican National Committee recommended only one policy change: endorsing an immigration overhaul, in hopes of attracting Hispanic voters.
That immigration bill is now struggling for life and attention in the Republican-run House. The bigger worry for many party leaders is the growing rift between business-oriented Republicans and the GOP's more ideological wing. Each accuses the other of bungling the debt ceiling and government shutdown dramas, widely seen as a major Republican embarrassment.
This would be why the mistakes made by the Obama administration in regards to the ACA will largely be ignored. The American people have come to realize in the last month that the Republicans are not helping out anyone and are, in fact, causing most of the problems we have as well as actively preventing our country from solving them.
And when you lose the National Review, well, then you really up shit crick...
The Race is on...
Members of the House have been grilling administration officials over the healthcare.gov website's problems, demanding apologies and complaining about the site's problems. This is completely hypocritical, considering that country has been mired in the sequester for more than a year, because Congress has been unable to pass a real budget.
By most accounts the negotiations of the House-Senate budget committee will not result in any grand plan, which means we could be struggling with threats of shutdowns and defaults well into the next year.
The committee has a deadline of Dec. 13. What are the odds that the health care website will be up and running smoothly before the same people complaining about it can get their act together and pass a budget?
By most accounts the negotiations of the House-Senate budget committee will not result in any grand plan, which means we could be struggling with threats of shutdowns and defaults well into the next year.
The committee has a deadline of Dec. 13. What are the odds that the health care website will be up and running smoothly before the same people complaining about it can get their act together and pass a budget?
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Greenspan: Corporations Can't Be Trusted
The former chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, has released a new book about how wrong he was about the crash in 2008, The Map and the Territory. In an interview on The Daily Show, he says that he always assumed that people in the markets would behave rationally, and that they wouldn't take risks that would destroy their own companies. He now understands how completely wrong he was.
What's interesting about his analysis of the crash is that he squarely places the blame for the crazy risk-taking on the fact that the brokerages were corporations and not partnerships (starting at about 3:20):
The entire purpose of a corporation is to shield officers from any economic responsibility for the decisions they make. And it's even worse than that: officers of major corporations have contracts with golden parachutes that guarantee them a huge payoff no matter how much harm they cause the company. They have no incentives to do the right thing, and there are no consequences for incompetence and malfeasance.
When conservatives talk about personal responsibility it's always in the context of keeping poor people off welfare and denying abortions to women. But when BP is fined for ecological catastrophes in the Gulf, or JPMorgan Chase is fined for its economic calamities, conservatives characterize these slaps on the hand as revenge and shakedowns.
When are we going to hold CEOs to the same standards as welfare moms?
What's interesting about his analysis of the crash is that he squarely places the blame for the crazy risk-taking on the fact that the brokerages were corporations and not partnerships (starting at about 3:20):
Greenspan: When we began to see what was going on, you couldn't believe that there would be people that would be that disregarding of their own companies. How could you run, as you say, 30 times...
Stewart: Right. Thirty times on the leverage. Isn't it because they don't pay the penalty.
Greenspan: Yes.
Stewart: Isn't it the rewards that they were getting... the system was incentivized for these crazy short-term bursts of rewards.
Greenspan: Back in 1970, the New York Stock Exchange said that broker-dealers -- which is who all these people are -- could incorporate. Prior to then, they were all partnerships. And let me tell you something about a partnership: your partners don't let you take any risks that can affect them. And I remember they wouldn't lend you a nickel overnight.
And the system worked. You did not get anybody failing because the equity was protected. As soon as they started to go to corporations, they took risks for exactly the reason you suggest.Here we have one of the foremost proponents of capitalism telling us that corporations cannot be trusted to do the right thing, because the people who make the decisions have no skin in the game.
The entire purpose of a corporation is to shield officers from any economic responsibility for the decisions they make. And it's even worse than that: officers of major corporations have contracts with golden parachutes that guarantee them a huge payoff no matter how much harm they cause the company. They have no incentives to do the right thing, and there are no consequences for incompetence and malfeasance.
When conservatives talk about personal responsibility it's always in the context of keeping poor people off welfare and denying abortions to women. But when BP is fined for ecological catastrophes in the Gulf, or JPMorgan Chase is fined for its economic calamities, conservatives characterize these slaps on the hand as revenge and shakedowns.
When are we going to hold CEOs to the same standards as welfare moms?
Did They Like It?
Lisa Myers current story about the ACA, the president and health insurance is sure to elicit many adolescent "n'yah n'yah's" from the right wing blogsphere. Yet all the hubbub over this is missing an answer to a key question: Did people like their health insurance?
Before we dive into answering that questions, let's remember a few key facts. First, the people in question who are "losing" their insurance are those in the individual market, not the majority of Americans (85-90%) who get their health insurance through their employers. For me, this translates into most Americans not really caring about "Gotcha #538 of Infinity" because it doesn't affect them. If they liked the president before this still will. If they didn't, they won't and will accuse him of being Richard Nixon. Oh well.
Second, people aren't actually having their policies cancelled as they did in the past. They are being brought up to a certain standard so if they do have have health issues at some point in the future, they aren't going to soak the rest of us. This is a correction to a massive flaw that was in the old system of insurance. That leads us to the third point and back to the question I posed at the start of this post. The market for individual coverage sucks. Premiums rise at the whim of the insurance company, people are kicked off plans or not allowed on for preexisting conditions, rates fluctuate wildly resulting 50 percent of the people in this market are churned through it every year.
So, when the president said, if you like your insurance, you get to keep it, I have to wonder, did people actually like their insurance coverage? Of those that did, how many watch Fox News and read right wing blogs? More importantly, did these people know what was in their policies and was it in their best interest to continue with such policy? I realize that bringing up the words "best interests" is sure to cause an explosive adolescent stomp down the hallway but people who make poor choices in terms of health care affect my life, with or without the ACA, so I welcome the regulation.
If the people in the individual market do not like their insurance or have issues with their current policies, that effectively means the president is not a liar. Did they really like it?
Before we dive into answering that questions, let's remember a few key facts. First, the people in question who are "losing" their insurance are those in the individual market, not the majority of Americans (85-90%) who get their health insurance through their employers. For me, this translates into most Americans not really caring about "Gotcha #538 of Infinity" because it doesn't affect them. If they liked the president before this still will. If they didn't, they won't and will accuse him of being Richard Nixon. Oh well.
Second, people aren't actually having their policies cancelled as they did in the past. They are being brought up to a certain standard so if they do have have health issues at some point in the future, they aren't going to soak the rest of us. This is a correction to a massive flaw that was in the old system of insurance. That leads us to the third point and back to the question I posed at the start of this post. The market for individual coverage sucks. Premiums rise at the whim of the insurance company, people are kicked off plans or not allowed on for preexisting conditions, rates fluctuate wildly resulting 50 percent of the people in this market are churned through it every year.
So, when the president said, if you like your insurance, you get to keep it, I have to wonder, did people actually like their insurance coverage? Of those that did, how many watch Fox News and read right wing blogs? More importantly, did these people know what was in their policies and was it in their best interest to continue with such policy? I realize that bringing up the words "best interests" is sure to cause an explosive adolescent stomp down the hallway but people who make poor choices in terms of health care affect my life, with or without the ACA, so I welcome the regulation.
If the people in the individual market do not like their insurance or have issues with their current policies, that effectively means the president is not a liar. Did they really like it?
No Revolution
I poked my head into Kevin Baker's site, The Smallest Minority, for the first time since I was voted off and found this. Aside from the usual warped and psychotic rightwingblogspeak, I'm trying to figure out what he meant by this...
I'm reminded once again of Thomas Sowell's A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles, his magnum opus. I recommend you read (if you haven't) my überpost on it from January, 2010.
This will not end well.
Obviously it could be the usual bloviating anger and irrational fear backed up with absolutely nothing (why do they continue to think that posting on blogs makes you powerful and scary?) but I think perhaps that Kevin truly believes that he and his fellow cult members might need to "take back the country." To that, I say this..
There will be no revolution as long as men have titties.
I'm reminded once again of Thomas Sowell's A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles, his magnum opus. I recommend you read (if you haven't) my überpost on it from January, 2010.
This will not end well.
Obviously it could be the usual bloviating anger and irrational fear backed up with absolutely nothing (why do they continue to think that posting on blogs makes you powerful and scary?) but I think perhaps that Kevin truly believes that he and his fellow cult members might need to "take back the country." To that, I say this..
There will be no revolution as long as men have titties.
Monday, October 28, 2013
A Tale of Two Web Sites
Great piece on Bloomberg discussing how the state run sites are faring much better than those in the states who refused to set up their own exchanges.
Don’t tell Elisabeth Benjamin it’s tough to sign up for Obamacare. For two weeks, she has been enrolling uninsured people from her New York City office through an online marketplace created by the law.
Most recently, she helped a Bronx home-health worker in her 30s get health coverage for $70 a month. “By week two, the system was pretty smooth,” said Benjamin, who’s certified to assist people signing up for health insurance.
It does help if you live in a state that isn't actively trying to sabotage the ACA's efforts. Kentucky, the only southern state to set up their own exchange, is doing just fine.
Elizabeth Watts of Kentucky, which runs an independent exchange, had her application accepted at 12:04 a.m. on Oct. 1, making her one of the first to start the enrollment process. Because of a rare disorder, she has already had a heart attack and a stent put in place. She makes $220 a week working at a Shell service station. Previously, the only insurance she could find was for $300 a month, which was too much for her to afford. Using the exchange site, Watts learned she was eligible for Medicaid, the state-federal program for the poor that was expanded under the law and will cover most of her costs. “It’s been such a relief,” said Watts, 31. The last time she saw her heart doctor, “it took 15 minutes and cost $160.”
Ms. Watts is a fantastic example of why the Right are shitting themselves right now. They know that once people like her in other deep red states start to sign up, they lose votes.
And then, they lose power.
Don’t tell Elisabeth Benjamin it’s tough to sign up for Obamacare. For two weeks, she has been enrolling uninsured people from her New York City office through an online marketplace created by the law.
Most recently, she helped a Bronx home-health worker in her 30s get health coverage for $70 a month. “By week two, the system was pretty smooth,” said Benjamin, who’s certified to assist people signing up for health insurance.
It does help if you live in a state that isn't actively trying to sabotage the ACA's efforts. Kentucky, the only southern state to set up their own exchange, is doing just fine.
Elizabeth Watts of Kentucky, which runs an independent exchange, had her application accepted at 12:04 a.m. on Oct. 1, making her one of the first to start the enrollment process. Because of a rare disorder, she has already had a heart attack and a stent put in place. She makes $220 a week working at a Shell service station. Previously, the only insurance she could find was for $300 a month, which was too much for her to afford. Using the exchange site, Watts learned she was eligible for Medicaid, the state-federal program for the poor that was expanded under the law and will cover most of her costs. “It’s been such a relief,” said Watts, 31. The last time she saw her heart doctor, “it took 15 minutes and cost $160.”
Ms. Watts is a fantastic example of why the Right are shitting themselves right now. They know that once people like her in other deep red states start to sign up, they lose votes.
And then, they lose power.
This Is Spinal Fusion: a Medical Dilemma
The Washington Post has a major story about the increasing number of spinal fusions in the United States. Spinal fusion is a medical procedure that bolts vertebrae together to relieve pain and restore limb function.
The Post story looks at the large number of fusions done by a Florida neurosurgeon, Federico C. Vinas. There are suggestions that many of these procedures were not medically necessary, and Vinas did them just for profit (he makes $2 million a year). Spinal fusion is not cheap: in the United States it costs on average of $111,000.
Spinal fusion, like almost everything in American medicine, is overpriced. Based on outcomes from countries similar to the United States, the costs of medical procedures are artificially high: probably five to ten times what they should be (which is obvious from the fact that even within the United States they vary that much).
The Post talked to several patients who did not benefit from the surgery, some of whom are in severe pain and unable to walk. Others are now leading normal lives. These newspaper anecdotes are compelling, but don't really address the efficacy of spinal fusions. The problem is that there is no real consensus on the efficacy of fusion for treating nonspecific low back pain.
The Post story isn't the first on this topic: Bloomberg examined the same issue in 2010. The Bloomberg story is interesting because it's about the Twin Cities Spine Center and Ensor Transfeldt, a surgeon who examined me 20 years ago. Several years ago I had a minimally invasive cervical laminoforaminotomy by a different Twin Cities Spine surgeon. I passed on proposals by other surgeons for a fusion or a disc replacement: the Terminator-like spine model with the titanium ball-bearing design really creeped me out.
Limitations of Spinal Fusion
By its very nature spinal fusion reduces the patient's flexibility by bolting together two or three vertebrae with bone transplanted from the patient's hip or a cadaver. The fusion prevents rotation of the spine at those levels, putting stress on other parts of the spine, which can cause serious damage and pain, and potentially limits the patient's activities. It's therefore not something you should consider lightly. Other surgical procedures, such as disc replacement, still have serious limitations.
I'm therefore inclined to agree with the thrust of the Post and Bloomberg's reporting: some doctors are doing too many fusions.
Playing Golf and Tennis
The increase in the number of fusions is by no means motivated solely by profit: many people are simply not willing to suffer excruciating pain, become dependent on narcotic painkillers, or become invalids, and they look to surgery to make them mobile (from the Post):
Keeping People Active and Healthy
Ask any doctor how to prevent diabetes and heart disease, and the top two answers go hand in hand: weight control and exercise.
If you can't walk, you can't run, and you can't do any serious exercise. If you don't exercise you gain weight and your heart and lung function decline. You get diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, and are at increased risk of stroke and even cancer. You lose your sense of proprioception, which is essential to avoiding falls. You experience bone loss, which makes serious fractures from even minor falls likely. In particular, hip fractures are a major factor in the decline and death of the elderly ("ma was doing great until she fell and broke her hip").
In strictly monetary terms, the question is: Are the long-term costs of treating chronic organic problems like diabetes, hypertension and heart disease caused by being sedentary greater than the costs of correcting orthopedic conditions that exacerbate those organic problems?
The cheapest solution is to keep people active and healthy, and off expensive painkillers (with their addictive and debilitating side effects), and diabetes and blood pressure meds for as long as possible.
No Responsibility for Patient Healing
The motivation shouldn't be for surgeons to do spinal fusions because they make more money. The only motivation should be to restore good health and function to the patient.
The problem with our health care system is that it's so fragmented: no one entity is responsible for healing the patient; they're all focused on their own particular specialties. That pits caregivers in different specialty areas against each other as they try to sell their own solutions to patients. There's usually no neutral arbiter with sufficient medical expertise to help a patient decide on the best solution. Patients have to decide for themselves, with only the advice of the specialists with a vested interest to go on. Often the best salesman -- not the best solution -- will win.
Practices at the Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic try to resolve that issue, but they're initially expensive and geographically limited.
The Health Care Cost Spiral
Ultimately, the question of spinal fusions cannot be simply characterized as "doctors are money grubbers" and "baby boomers are getting fusions so they can play tennis." Our health care system is not focused on healing people, but on making money. The profit motive distorts medical care.
On the other side, patients want to be able to work, pick up their grandchildren, use their hands and arms, walk on their own two feet, get themselves out of bed and into the bathroom and bathe themselves. Most people would pay anything to do that.
Whenever someone talks about fixing the first problem someone yells, "Free Market!" and whenever someone talks about fixing the second problem someone yells, "Death Panels!"
Hence the problem of ever-spiraling health-care costs.
Given all the fretting about the number of nursing assistants we'll need as baby boomers age, it will probably be cheaper in the long run to to fix orthopedic problems -- back, knee and hip -- by whatever means necessary to keep an aging population mobile, healthy and self-sufficient as long as possible.
The Post story looks at the large number of fusions done by a Florida neurosurgeon, Federico C. Vinas. There are suggestions that many of these procedures were not medically necessary, and Vinas did them just for profit (he makes $2 million a year). Spinal fusion is not cheap: in the United States it costs on average of $111,000.
Spinal fusion, like almost everything in American medicine, is overpriced. Based on outcomes from countries similar to the United States, the costs of medical procedures are artificially high: probably five to ten times what they should be (which is obvious from the fact that even within the United States they vary that much).
The Post talked to several patients who did not benefit from the surgery, some of whom are in severe pain and unable to walk. Others are now leading normal lives. These newspaper anecdotes are compelling, but don't really address the efficacy of spinal fusions. The problem is that there is no real consensus on the efficacy of fusion for treating nonspecific low back pain.
The Post story isn't the first on this topic: Bloomberg examined the same issue in 2010. The Bloomberg story is interesting because it's about the Twin Cities Spine Center and Ensor Transfeldt, a surgeon who examined me 20 years ago. Several years ago I had a minimally invasive cervical laminoforaminotomy by a different Twin Cities Spine surgeon. I passed on proposals by other surgeons for a fusion or a disc replacement: the Terminator-like spine model with the titanium ball-bearing design really creeped me out.
Limitations of Spinal Fusion
By its very nature spinal fusion reduces the patient's flexibility by bolting together two or three vertebrae with bone transplanted from the patient's hip or a cadaver. The fusion prevents rotation of the spine at those levels, putting stress on other parts of the spine, which can cause serious damage and pain, and potentially limits the patient's activities. It's therefore not something you should consider lightly. Other surgical procedures, such as disc replacement, still have serious limitations.
I'm therefore inclined to agree with the thrust of the Post and Bloomberg's reporting: some doctors are doing too many fusions.
Playing Golf and Tennis
The increase in the number of fusions is by no means motivated solely by profit: many people are simply not willing to suffer excruciating pain, become dependent on narcotic painkillers, or become invalids, and they look to surgery to make them mobile (from the Post):
“Patients want to be able to play tennis and golf and go surfing at much higher ages than they did in the past,” said Gunnar Andersson, chairman emeritus of the department of orthopedic surgery at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago and president-elect of the International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery, a professional group. “They are more likely to seek out treatment and more likely to accept surgery as an option.”This echoes a popular refrain: "Baby Boomers don't want to age gracefully." This attitude is dead wrong.
Keeping People Active and Healthy
Ask any doctor how to prevent diabetes and heart disease, and the top two answers go hand in hand: weight control and exercise.
If you can't walk, you can't run, and you can't do any serious exercise. If you don't exercise you gain weight and your heart and lung function decline. You get diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, and are at increased risk of stroke and even cancer. You lose your sense of proprioception, which is essential to avoiding falls. You experience bone loss, which makes serious fractures from even minor falls likely. In particular, hip fractures are a major factor in the decline and death of the elderly ("ma was doing great until she fell and broke her hip").
In strictly monetary terms, the question is: Are the long-term costs of treating chronic organic problems like diabetes, hypertension and heart disease caused by being sedentary greater than the costs of correcting orthopedic conditions that exacerbate those organic problems?
The cheapest solution is to keep people active and healthy, and off expensive painkillers (with their addictive and debilitating side effects), and diabetes and blood pressure meds for as long as possible.
No Responsibility for Patient Healing
The motivation shouldn't be for surgeons to do spinal fusions because they make more money. The only motivation should be to restore good health and function to the patient.
The problem with our health care system is that it's so fragmented: no one entity is responsible for healing the patient; they're all focused on their own particular specialties. That pits caregivers in different specialty areas against each other as they try to sell their own solutions to patients. There's usually no neutral arbiter with sufficient medical expertise to help a patient decide on the best solution. Patients have to decide for themselves, with only the advice of the specialists with a vested interest to go on. Often the best salesman -- not the best solution -- will win.
Practices at the Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic try to resolve that issue, but they're initially expensive and geographically limited.
The Health Care Cost Spiral
Ultimately, the question of spinal fusions cannot be simply characterized as "doctors are money grubbers" and "baby boomers are getting fusions so they can play tennis." Our health care system is not focused on healing people, but on making money. The profit motive distorts medical care.
On the other side, patients want to be able to work, pick up their grandchildren, use their hands and arms, walk on their own two feet, get themselves out of bed and into the bathroom and bathe themselves. Most people would pay anything to do that.
Whenever someone talks about fixing the first problem someone yells, "Free Market!" and whenever someone talks about fixing the second problem someone yells, "Death Panels!"
Hence the problem of ever-spiraling health-care costs.
Given all the fretting about the number of nursing assistants we'll need as baby boomers age, it will probably be cheaper in the long run to to fix orthopedic problems -- back, knee and hip -- by whatever means necessary to keep an aging population mobile, healthy and self-sufficient as long as possible.
A Change of Heart On Inflation
My latest installment on Stiglitz was heavily centered on the issue of inflation and how the Fed seems completely obsessed with keeping it low. Yet, a recent piece in the New York Times indicates that there might be a sea change with the appointment of Janet Yellin.
The Fed has worked for decades to suppress inflation, but economists, including Janet Yellen, President Obama’s nominee to lead the Fed starting next year, have long argued that a little inflation is particularly valuable when the economy is weak. Rising prices help companies increase profits; rising wages help borrowers repay debts. Inflation also encourages people and businesses to borrow money and spend it more quickly.
I agree. We have to end the inflation hawk hysteria and move towards a more balanced approach towards growth. This is exactly what Stiglitz was hoping would happen when he wrote his tome two years ago and we may finally be heading in that direction.
The Fed has worked for decades to suppress inflation, but economists, including Janet Yellen, President Obama’s nominee to lead the Fed starting next year, have long argued that a little inflation is particularly valuable when the economy is weak. Rising prices help companies increase profits; rising wages help borrowers repay debts. Inflation also encourages people and businesses to borrow money and spend it more quickly.
I agree. We have to end the inflation hawk hysteria and move towards a more balanced approach towards growth. This is exactly what Stiglitz was hoping would happen when he wrote his tome two years ago and we may finally be heading in that direction.
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)