What do you mean by "welfare?" Medicare and Medicaid alone are nearly 30% of the federal budget. And yes, Medicare is welfare, because the benefits are invariant with respect to taxes paid, which means that the poor end up paying a nominal tax for the same benefits the rich pay through the nose for.
<i>Was he really advocating we pay for any of those things with a giant flowing money tree or by gold jelly beans from magic sparkle unicorns.</i>
No, but the standard Democratic line is that they be financed by raising taxes exclusively on the rich. Which means that for most people it's functionally equivalent to funding by magic sparkle unicorns. "We will give you free stuff, and it will be paid for exclusively by people who make more money than you" is a reasonably accurate summary of what Democrats are proposing.
Pandering is what democracy is all about. To get elected, you have to tell the people what they want to hear. And the median voter in the primaries wants to hear different things than the median voter in the general election. All politicans do this--Fehrnstrom was just dumb enough to say it explicitly.
I don't really have a problem with this in principle. Burglary is a serious crime. It creates a dangerous situation that can result in innocent people being killed. When a burglar goes free, there's a small but non-negligible chance that an innocent person will die as a result, and I don't think that it's worth taking that chance just to save the life of a burglar. And that's not even taking into account the very real costs in property loss and the psychic cost to the neighborhood residents. If a burglar can be captured alive, great. That's the first-best outcome. But as far as I'm concerned, the second-best outcome is that he's captured dead, not that he escapes.
I say "in principle" because I'm a bit worried about someone committing murder and setting it up to look like a thwarted burglary. I'm not sure how realistic that is.
1. Not all, but the probability is high enough and the cost is low enough that it really doesn't make sense to insure. If there were a disease that most men had that could be treated by an inexpensive drug, I would similarly argue that it's not a good candidate for insurance. Really, I think all health insurance plans should have high deductibles, rendering the question more or less moot.
2. What are you, five? "If you don't want to buy me a pony, then you have to buy me a bicycle!"
Ten to one odds that neither party to that conversation actually knows what Limbaugh said. Usually it just gets reported as "Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a 'slut' and a 'prostitute.'" Which is technically accurate in that he used those words, but he wasn't actually accusing her of engaging in prostitution. It was a metaphor. Not a terribly apt one, granted. If you actually listen to the clip, it's clear that Limbaugh is vaguely aware of this and is reaching for a better metaphor, but he never quite gets there.
He was making a perfectly legitimate point about the unfairness of externalizing the costs of private benefits. More crudely than I would have chosen to make it, and not as clearly as he could have, but what he actually said is very different from what's implied by the decontextualized second-hand accounts.
Yeah, I'm getting completely different ads (Bible study, Santorum vs. Obama, something about the EPA) when I fire up my browser in private mode. I suspect that it defaults to ads based on keywords on the page when it doesn't have access to cookies.
I'm pretty sure the ads are based on interests implied by your browsing history. I'm getting ads for a niche job recruiting site that I've visited before.
Which suggests to me that you're the scientologist.
At the last company I worked for, the high-deductible plan inexplicably had a deductible just below the minimum which would have made it eligible for an HSA. Instead we got something they called a medical savings account. The company would deposit something like $500 per year, and this would not roll over. I tried to get them to offer a plan with a slightly higher deductible to qualify for an HSA (which I had been using at my previous company to get an extra few thousand dollars of tax-deferred savings), but they didn't seem to have any idea what I was talking about.
We do. The vouchers are called “money” and employers are forced by law to give it to anyone who works for them.
If cash counts as food vouchers, then it also counts as contraception coverage. So there's no problem here, right? Employers are already providing contraception coverage in the form of cash wages.
Unlike the Amish, who simply insist that their members not do certain things- the RCC finds contraceptive use by ANYONE to be morally objectionable, and is seeking ways to enforce that.
Really? I must have missed the part where they're lobbying to ban contraception altogether.
1. Contraception coverage isn't insurance. It's a prepayment plan. Regular, predictable expenses are not insurable events.
2. When employers choose not to compensate you in the form of health insurance that covers contraceptives, and the government forces them to, that's not market compensation. It's a forced subsidy.
And you're just quibbling over semantics, anyway. The point is that the claim by "A Teacher" that anyone is being denied birth control is straight up bullshit. Those who want it can buy it.
No one is using religious beliefs to deny anyone anything (That's an odd phrasing. It makes it sound like religious beliefs are superpowers). A woman goes to the doctor, the doctor prescribes oral contraceptives, and then she goes to the pharmacy and pays for them. She's not being denied contraceptives any more than she's being denied food.
I'm going to need you to stay after class and write "The absence of subsidy does not constitute prohibition" on the blackboard fifty times.
But only for people who can't afford it. The vast majority of people pay for it out of pocket. Why no mandate that every employer's compensation package must include food vouchers?
Forgot to add my point: Most health insurance providers aren’t in the business of providing health care, anymore than coal mine operators are in the business of providing a safe and comfortable working environment.
That's a cute trick, but you can play this game with anything. Governments aren't in the business of providing good government--they're in the business of getting reelected. Teachers aren't in the business of providing education--they're in the business of cashing paychecks. Husbands aren't in the business of By this logic, nothing ever works.
And there are all kinds of horror stories of people waiting months or years for CAT scans or elective procedures in countries with socialized health care. It's unlikely that getting your father the treatment he wanted would have been a particulaly high priority for a government-run health care system.
By the way, why didn't you just name the insurance company? Reputational deterrents don't work if people don't talk.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “In Which I Posit the Theory that Fiscal Conservatives Should Vote for a Democrat POTUS – (and government spending advocates should vote GOP)”
What do you mean by "welfare?" Medicare and Medicaid alone are nearly 30% of the federal budget. And yes, Medicare is welfare, because the benefits are invariant with respect to taxes paid, which means that the poor end up paying a nominal tax for the same benefits the rich pay through the nose for.
On “Like any truly great politician, the real Mitt Romney doesn’t exist”
<i>Was he really advocating we pay for any of those things with a giant flowing money tree or by gold jelly beans from magic sparkle unicorns.</i>
No, but the standard Democratic line is that they be financed by raising taxes exclusively on the rich. Which means that for most people it's functionally equivalent to funding by magic sparkle unicorns. "We will give you free stuff, and it will be paid for exclusively by people who make more money than you" is a reasonably accurate summary of what Democrats are proposing.
"
Pandering is what democracy is all about. To get elected, you have to tell the people what they want to hear. And the median voter in the primaries wants to hear different things than the median voter in the general election. All politicans do this--Fehrnstrom was just dumb enough to say it explicitly.
On “Don’t Fear Me”
When you commit a felony--a real one, with a victim--you don't have a civil right to escape to commit another one.
"
Pft! All you have to do is get elected to the Senate.
"
I don't really have a problem with this in principle. Burglary is a serious crime. It creates a dangerous situation that can result in innocent people being killed. When a burglar goes free, there's a small but non-negligible chance that an innocent person will die as a result, and I don't think that it's worth taking that chance just to save the life of a burglar. And that's not even taking into account the very real costs in property loss and the psychic cost to the neighborhood residents. If a burglar can be captured alive, great. That's the first-best outcome. But as far as I'm concerned, the second-best outcome is that he's captured dead, not that he escapes.
I say "in principle" because I'm a bit worried about someone committing murder and setting it up to look like a thwarted burglary. I'm not sure how realistic that is.
On “Contraception mandate and liberalism (a.k.a Beating a dead horse) (updated 19/3/2012, 8:40am GMT+8)”
1. Not all, but the probability is high enough and the cost is low enough that it really doesn't make sense to insure. If there were a disease that most men had that could be treated by an inexpensive drug, I would similarly argue that it's not a good candidate for insurance. Really, I think all health insurance plans should have high deductibles, rendering the question more or less moot.
2. What are you, five? "If you don't want to buy me a pony, then you have to buy me a bicycle!"
"
I wasn't aware that you were any kind of woman.
That's the problem with the "The misogyny! It's everywhere!" school of feminism. It's self-confirming, even in the absence of any actual evidence.
On “The Silence is Deafening, but not Illuminating”
Ten to one odds that neither party to that conversation actually knows what Limbaugh said. Usually it just gets reported as "Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a 'slut' and a 'prostitute.'" Which is technically accurate in that he used those words, but he wasn't actually accusing her of engaging in prostitution. It was a metaphor. Not a terribly apt one, granted. If you actually listen to the clip, it's clear that Limbaugh is vaguely aware of this and is reaching for a better metaphor, but he never quite gets there.
He was making a perfectly legitimate point about the unfairness of externalizing the costs of private benefits. More crudely than I would have chosen to make it, and not as clearly as he could have, but what he actually said is very different from what's implied by the decontextualized second-hand accounts.
"
Or you could just save some time and link to a bunch of posts on Robin Hanson's blog.
"
You mean in the "Why can't we all put aside our differences and do what I want to do?" sense?
"
Oh, that's where you're wrong. You'll be wearing funny-looking pants and prattling on about birdies by next Thursday.
Shortly thereafter, you'll develop an interest in golf.
"
Safety gerbils, as we call them in the community.
"
Yeah, I'm getting completely different ads (Bible study, Santorum vs. Obama, something about the EPA) when I fire up my browser in private mode. I suspect that it defaults to ads based on keywords on the page when it doesn't have access to cookies.
"
In retrospect, I should have kept quiet about this until started mentioning ads that revealed embarrassing things about their browsing histories.
"
I'm pretty sure the ads are based on interests implied by your browsing history. I'm getting ads for a niche job recruiting site that I've visited before.
Which suggests to me that you're the scientologist.
On “Contraception mandate and liberalism (a.k.a Beating a dead horse) (updated 19/3/2012, 8:40am GMT+8)”
At the last company I worked for, the high-deductible plan inexplicably had a deductible just below the minimum which would have made it eligible for an HSA. Instead we got something they called a medical savings account. The company would deposit something like $500 per year, and this would not roll over. I tried to get them to offer a plan with a slightly higher deductible to qualify for an HSA (which I had been using at my previous company to get an extra few thousand dollars of tax-deferred savings), but they didn't seem to have any idea what I was talking about.
"
We do. The vouchers are called “money” and employers are forced by law to give it to anyone who works for them.
If cash counts as food vouchers, then it also counts as contraception coverage. So there's no problem here, right? Employers are already providing contraception coverage in the form of cash wages.
Unlike the Amish, who simply insist that their members not do certain things- the RCC finds contraceptive use by ANYONE to be morally objectionable, and is seeking ways to enforce that.
Really? I must have missed the part where they're lobbying to ban contraception altogether.
"
Also, you should calm down.
"
No, you don't, because:
1. Contraception coverage isn't insurance. It's a prepayment plan. Regular, predictable expenses are not insurable events.
2. When employers choose not to compensate you in the form of health insurance that covers contraceptives, and the government forces them to, that's not market compensation. It's a forced subsidy.
And you're just quibbling over semantics, anyway. The point is that the claim by "A Teacher" that anyone is being denied birth control is straight up bullshit. Those who want it can buy it.
"
Oh, Cigna. I don't think I've ever heard of them. I had to look it up.
"
No one is using religious beliefs to deny anyone anything (That's an odd phrasing. It makes it sound like religious beliefs are superpowers). A woman goes to the doctor, the doctor prescribes oral contraceptives, and then she goes to the pharmacy and pays for them. She's not being denied contraceptives any more than she's being denied food.
I'm going to need you to stay after class and write "The absence of subsidy does not constitute prohibition" on the blackboard fifty times.
"
But only for people who can't afford it. The vast majority of people pay for it out of pocket. Why no mandate that every employer's compensation package must include food vouchers?
"
I imagine your wife also needs food to function. Why don't you object to having to pay for that out of pocket?
"
Forgot to add my point: Most health insurance providers aren’t in the business of providing health care, anymore than coal mine operators are in the business of providing a safe and comfortable working environment.
That's a cute trick, but you can play this game with anything. Governments aren't in the business of providing good government--they're in the business of getting reelected. Teachers aren't in the business of providing education--they're in the business of cashing paychecks. Husbands aren't in the business of By this logic, nothing ever works.
And there are all kinds of horror stories of people waiting months or years for CAT scans or elective procedures in countries with socialized health care. It's unlikely that getting your father the treatment he wanted would have been a particulaly high priority for a government-run health care system.
By the way, why didn't you just name the insurance company? Reputational deterrents don't work if people don't talk.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.