Sarah Kliff reports that if the Individual Mandate is struck down, California is going to move forward on its own with a single-payer system.
Although, I personally don't think this is the way to go, I couldn't be happier that California has the opportunity to craft a health care system that works for them and doesn't have to follow the rules that were reached by compromise between all the competing interests and philosophies of the entire nation.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Lives Must Be Saved
Families USA has recently suggested that invalidating the ACA will leave millions more uninsured which will result in more deaths. Therefore, we should make sure that these people stay insured. Of course, this isn't enough. Even with the ACA, millions will remain uninsured. That will result in even more deaths and can't be tolerated. Obviously, an individual mandate isn't enough to keep these people insured and save their lives. We must double-down on this insurance to make sure everyone can live an insured, healthy life.
With the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan winding down, we'll soon have soldiers without much to do. I propose we create some units that will be sent to force the uninsured to purchase insurance. The penalty for not having insurance in the ACA is clearly too weak. Think of all the lives that could be saved by intimidating these at-risk citizens with guns and violence.
To save even more lives, we should seriously consider curtailing people's traveling rights. Tens of thousands of people die each year in car accidents. Perhaps we should institute a national 10 mph speed limit on all roads or restrict driving all together.
With the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan winding down, we'll soon have soldiers without much to do. I propose we create some units that will be sent to force the uninsured to purchase insurance. The penalty for not having insurance in the ACA is clearly too weak. Think of all the lives that could be saved by intimidating these at-risk citizens with guns and violence.
To save even more lives, we should seriously consider curtailing people's traveling rights. Tens of thousands of people die each year in car accidents. Perhaps we should institute a national 10 mph speed limit on all roads or restrict driving all together.
Overturning Precedents
Ezra Klein interviews James Simon
Here's what Simon says on invalidating the individual mandate
He's talking about overturning Wickard v. Filburn. The case on which the modern interpretation of the commerce clause is based. What he conveniently forgets is that Wickard v. Filburn itself overturned 150 years of precedent by expanding the ability of the Federal government so that the New Deal would be possible, along with Medicare, Social Security, etc.--the modern welfare state.
Notice also how in his responses, conservative justices are always described as ideaological and liberals justices are just liberal.
Finally, in the final question, Ezra Klein worries about how the Supreme Court decided the 2000 election and then Bush went on to appoint two justices. As I recall, both justices were appointed in his second term, which was not decided by the courts in any way. Did Bush win an 8-year term in 2000 that I didn't know about?
Here's what Simon says on invalidating the individual mandate
But then the question comes, once you get five votes, do you simply uproot 75 years of constitutional precedent? If you do that, you’re not showing judicial restraint. You’re a very, very activist court. And then the court makes itself an issue in any political campaign. If a doctrine as important as the Commerce Clause doctrine can be reversed by a single vote or even two votes, without much attention to precedent, then the court becomes another political branch of the government.
He's talking about overturning Wickard v. Filburn. The case on which the modern interpretation of the commerce clause is based. What he conveniently forgets is that Wickard v. Filburn itself overturned 150 years of precedent by expanding the ability of the Federal government so that the New Deal would be possible, along with Medicare, Social Security, etc.--the modern welfare state.
Notice also how in his responses, conservative justices are always described as ideaological and liberals justices are just liberal.
Finally, in the final question, Ezra Klein worries about how the Supreme Court decided the 2000 election and then Bush went on to appoint two justices. As I recall, both justices were appointed in his second term, which was not decided by the courts in any way. Did Bush win an 8-year term in 2000 that I didn't know about?
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
The Constitution - A Crippling Burden We Can't Escape
Ronald Dworkin writes
I believe this is illustrative of how liberals think about these issues. They believe the purpose of the Constitution is to provide technical rules (the President must be 35, there must be two senators per state, etc.) and that's all. Congress and the President then have (nearly) unlimited power to do what they think is in the best interest of the public.
Dworkin offers his idea of what the government should be empowered to do: when they have a specific goal in mind, they should enact "the most effective, efficient, fair, and politically workable" solution as long as it doesn't "violate anyone's rights or limit anyone's liberty in ways a state government could not."
Of course, the former requirement is pretty meaningless when you think about it. You'll never find a proposition that is simultaneously the most effective, efficient, fair, and politically workable. Compromise among those four pillars would be necessary. That would make any policy possible.
If that's what liberals want, then they should propose a Constitutional Convention and draw up a new Constitution that explicitly says so. But right now, the Constitution says that powers not explicitly granted to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people.
I think it's important that we have a document that constrains the power in the federal government. I feel that liberals would prefer that the government have few constraints so that it could ensure we live our lives how liberals want us to live them.
If the Court does declare the act unconstitutional, it would have ruled that Congress lacks the power to adopt what it thought the most effective, efficient, fair, and politically workable remedy—not because that national remedy would violate anyone’s rights, or limit anyone’s liberty in ways a state government could not, or be otherwise unfair, but for the sole reason that in the Court’s opinion our constitution is a strict and arbitrary document that denies our national legislature the power to enact the only politically possible national program. If that opinion were right, we would have to accept that our eighteenth- century constitution is not the enduring marvel of statesmanship we suppose but an anachronistic, crippling burden we cannot escape, a straitjacket that makes it impossible for us to achieve a just national society.
I believe this is illustrative of how liberals think about these issues. They believe the purpose of the Constitution is to provide technical rules (the President must be 35, there must be two senators per state, etc.) and that's all. Congress and the President then have (nearly) unlimited power to do what they think is in the best interest of the public.
Dworkin offers his idea of what the government should be empowered to do: when they have a specific goal in mind, they should enact "the most effective, efficient, fair, and politically workable" solution as long as it doesn't "violate anyone's rights or limit anyone's liberty in ways a state government could not."
Of course, the former requirement is pretty meaningless when you think about it. You'll never find a proposition that is simultaneously the most effective, efficient, fair, and politically workable. Compromise among those four pillars would be necessary. That would make any policy possible.
If that's what liberals want, then they should propose a Constitutional Convention and draw up a new Constitution that explicitly says so. But right now, the Constitution says that powers not explicitly granted to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people.
I think it's important that we have a document that constrains the power in the federal government. I feel that liberals would prefer that the government have few constraints so that it could ensure we live our lives how liberals want us to live them.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Hopeless?
It's pieces like this that make me wonder if the future is hopeless. I'm not saying that the people who disagree with me are hopelessly ignorant; what I'm wondering is if the differences between us are irreconcilable.
Liberals passionately believe that the individual mandate is constitutional. Granted many of them have no convincing reasoning, but many do. Likewise conservatives passionately believe the opposite with a similar breakdown of quality of reasoning. Though I believe I'm right, I think it's impossible that I could convince most of my educated opponents.
Likewise, I think it would be very difficult to convince me.
What's even worse, is when someone (on either side) minimizes the other side's point of view by saying "it's clear" or that they base their reasoning "on a principle as flimsy and manufactured as activity vs. inactivity." When someone says that, they're not being open-minded, and debate is futile.
If we can't have an open and fair debate on issues, what hopes is there for democracy?
Liberals passionately believe that the individual mandate is constitutional. Granted many of them have no convincing reasoning, but many do. Likewise conservatives passionately believe the opposite with a similar breakdown of quality of reasoning. Though I believe I'm right, I think it's impossible that I could convince most of my educated opponents.
Likewise, I think it would be very difficult to convince me.
What's even worse, is when someone (on either side) minimizes the other side's point of view by saying "it's clear" or that they base their reasoning "on a principle as flimsy and manufactured as activity vs. inactivity." When someone says that, they're not being open-minded, and debate is futile.
If we can't have an open and fair debate on issues, what hopes is there for democracy?
Government Needs to Increase Spending on X
Today X is research.
There is little evidence that government investment in research is beneficial. Generally what advocates do is find something that was immensely beneficial (the internet, semiconductors, GPS) then talks about how the government funded it. What they haven't proved to my knowledge was that these innovations would not have occurred had the government not acted. I find it hard to believe that semiconductors wouldn't have caught on in the absence of government funding.
Government invest can be immensely beneficial if no private party stands to gain enough by his innovation but society's benefits would be enormous.
I do agree with the final paragraph that the government should make innovation in the pharmaceutical industry less costly. But this is evidence that the government already impedes innovation.
There is little evidence that government investment in research is beneficial. Generally what advocates do is find something that was immensely beneficial (the internet, semiconductors, GPS) then talks about how the government funded it. What they haven't proved to my knowledge was that these innovations would not have occurred had the government not acted. I find it hard to believe that semiconductors wouldn't have caught on in the absence of government funding.
Government invest can be immensely beneficial if no private party stands to gain enough by his innovation but society's benefits would be enormous.
I do agree with the final paragraph that the government should make innovation in the pharmaceutical industry less costly. But this is evidence that the government already impedes innovation.
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Mandatory Voting Won't Solve Anything
Peter Orszag's column about mandatory voting gives me an excuse to bring up some other issues with voting.
For one, the participation paradox has always bewildered me. The participation paradox is the argument that my vote has almost zero effect on the outcome, but has a positive cost, therefore if acting rationally, I shouldn't vote. However, if everyone acted rationally (or if rationality wasn't randomly distributed among voters), then the system would collapse.
I didn't want to accept this. What I recently decided, however, was that the number of people voting doesn't really make much of a difference as long as it's above a certain threshold. That's because when the number voting is high enough, randomness takes care of the ignorance of some people, the passion of others. I now believe that if everyone voted, the outcome would be similar to what it is now. The extension of this thought is that if one party was successfully able to increase turnout among its adherents, the opposing party would adapt (maybe they'd become more passionate/worried or the party would increase voter-drive efforts), and the final result would return to equilibrium.
Therefore, there's no need to increase turnout to 90% like Orszag wants.
For one, the participation paradox has always bewildered me. The participation paradox is the argument that my vote has almost zero effect on the outcome, but has a positive cost, therefore if acting rationally, I shouldn't vote. However, if everyone acted rationally (or if rationality wasn't randomly distributed among voters), then the system would collapse.
I didn't want to accept this. What I recently decided, however, was that the number of people voting doesn't really make much of a difference as long as it's above a certain threshold. That's because when the number voting is high enough, randomness takes care of the ignorance of some people, the passion of others. I now believe that if everyone voted, the outcome would be similar to what it is now. The extension of this thought is that if one party was successfully able to increase turnout among its adherents, the opposing party would adapt (maybe they'd become more passionate/worried or the party would increase voter-drive efforts), and the final result would return to equilibrium.
Therefore, there's no need to increase turnout to 90% like Orszag wants.
Insuring the Youth
Most of the people who doggedly follow health care reform know that one provision of the ACA forced insurance companies to allow young adults up to 26 to stay on their parents' insurance. I find aspects of this bizarre.
First, it's probably the case that these people will have low health care costs. Therefore, if they were participating in a perfect insurance market, the cost of insurance probably would have been low. Why would it be in their interest to move to the parent's plan. Presumably, the cost of adding them to the parent's plan would be higher than the cost of individual care. Therefore, they'd be subsidizing others. Again, why is that in their interest?
Possible answers: parents would be paying, so it's cheaper for the children. But then, the parents could have paid anyway. Still, I think that's the most likely explanation, as their are psychological reasons that'll push parents to pay when they're actually receiving the bill.
Secondly, why didn't the insurance companies do this in the first place? If they weren't doing it before, that implies it wasn't in their interest. But many companies have announced they'll maintain this policy even if the ACA is struck down. What changed? My best guess is that the insurance companies would have done this eventually, but the process was accelerated by the ACA.
Also, in this article at thehill.com, the author writes "Adding more young people to the insurance pool is popular in part because it helps lower premiums for everyone." I think they meant to say "everyone else." It costs more for the young people, of course.
First, it's probably the case that these people will have low health care costs. Therefore, if they were participating in a perfect insurance market, the cost of insurance probably would have been low. Why would it be in their interest to move to the parent's plan. Presumably, the cost of adding them to the parent's plan would be higher than the cost of individual care. Therefore, they'd be subsidizing others. Again, why is that in their interest?
Possible answers: parents would be paying, so it's cheaper for the children. But then, the parents could have paid anyway. Still, I think that's the most likely explanation, as their are psychological reasons that'll push parents to pay when they're actually receiving the bill.
Secondly, why didn't the insurance companies do this in the first place? If they weren't doing it before, that implies it wasn't in their interest. But many companies have announced they'll maintain this policy even if the ACA is struck down. What changed? My best guess is that the insurance companies would have done this eventually, but the process was accelerated by the ACA.
Also, in this article at thehill.com, the author writes "Adding more young people to the insurance pool is popular in part because it helps lower premiums for everyone." I think they meant to say "everyone else." It costs more for the young people, of course.
From the Party that Brought you the Individual Mandate
Why do Liberals perpetually want to make you do things that may not be in your interest to do?
Today, former OMB director Peter Orszag made the case for mandatory voting laws - everyone must vote. His motivations are unclear; he doesn't really say why we would be better off if that were the case. I think it's just part of the psychological make-up of Liberals. When they have a preference, they believe all people must share that preference and be forced to enjoy it.
His argument is extremely weak. First he notes than mandatory voting increases voting. Frankly, this is so obvious, I wonder why he even frames it as though it's unexpected. Then he gets to the real arguments.
He suggests that compulsory voting will change the role of money in elections. Money spent on turn-out-the-vote efforts would likely fall. No argument with that. But would the amount of money spent on elections in general fall? That's not clear, and he doesn't argue either way. I think it's likely that this money would just be moved to other categories.
He implies that there will be less negative advertising because the point of it is to discourage voting. Maybe, but this is just speculation. Maybe they'd need more negative advertising to push people from voting for their preferred candidate or encourage them to vote for a third-party. Who knows? If Orszag does, he gives very little information about how the money situation would change.
His next argument is that it would decrease polarization, which Liberals especially detest. Why? Because the people in the middle are less polarized. What exactly is the argument here? The political parties will have to moderate to attract voters? But which causes which? Do they not vote because they're moderate or are they moderate because they don't care about politics. It's not impossible that by forcing them to vote, they'll inform themselves and decide one party suits them better than another. Uh-oh, now they're polarized. Maybe the parties will double-down on polarization because they think it's more effective than moderation. Again, Orszag offers no evidence (other than for the fact that only the most polarized vote).
He then says that most evidence shows that compulsory voting has no effect on electoral outcome, but one study finds it did make a difference. Is this an outlier? How was their method different? Was it better than the historical studies? Orszag doesn't say.
In the last paragraph, Orszag summarizes the arguments for compulsory voting. 1) "It would make our democracy work better, in the sense of being more reflective of the population at large." and 2) "It could allow the first president in history to be elected by a majority of American adults."
1) Is there any evidence that the voting percentages would be different if everyone voted? Even the study he cited said only a handful of seats switched because of the law. So instead of Obama winning 52.9% of the vote, maybe he'd win 53.4%. That's not a big difference. He doesn't argue that it would change outcomes, only that we'd get a better view of what adults want in general instead of voting adults. Is this argument really the strongest one he could make?
2) Why should this be a goal? Who cares about this?
In summary, after reading this opinion, I'm bewildered. He has presented an extremely weak case for this issue, so weak, that it seems there must be something else motivating him that he doesn't discuss. Peter Orszag, I've been told, is a pretty bright guy, and generally his opinions are much better thought out than this. Maybe this piece is an outcome of a lost bet.
Today, former OMB director Peter Orszag made the case for mandatory voting laws - everyone must vote. His motivations are unclear; he doesn't really say why we would be better off if that were the case. I think it's just part of the psychological make-up of Liberals. When they have a preference, they believe all people must share that preference and be forced to enjoy it.
His argument is extremely weak. First he notes than mandatory voting increases voting. Frankly, this is so obvious, I wonder why he even frames it as though it's unexpected. Then he gets to the real arguments.
He suggests that compulsory voting will change the role of money in elections. Money spent on turn-out-the-vote efforts would likely fall. No argument with that. But would the amount of money spent on elections in general fall? That's not clear, and he doesn't argue either way. I think it's likely that this money would just be moved to other categories.
He implies that there will be less negative advertising because the point of it is to discourage voting. Maybe, but this is just speculation. Maybe they'd need more negative advertising to push people from voting for their preferred candidate or encourage them to vote for a third-party. Who knows? If Orszag does, he gives very little information about how the money situation would change.
His next argument is that it would decrease polarization, which Liberals especially detest. Why? Because the people in the middle are less polarized. What exactly is the argument here? The political parties will have to moderate to attract voters? But which causes which? Do they not vote because they're moderate or are they moderate because they don't care about politics. It's not impossible that by forcing them to vote, they'll inform themselves and decide one party suits them better than another. Uh-oh, now they're polarized. Maybe the parties will double-down on polarization because they think it's more effective than moderation. Again, Orszag offers no evidence (other than for the fact that only the most polarized vote).
He then says that most evidence shows that compulsory voting has no effect on electoral outcome, but one study finds it did make a difference. Is this an outlier? How was their method different? Was it better than the historical studies? Orszag doesn't say.
In the last paragraph, Orszag summarizes the arguments for compulsory voting. 1) "It would make our democracy work better, in the sense of being more reflective of the population at large." and 2) "It could allow the first president in history to be elected by a majority of American adults."
1) Is there any evidence that the voting percentages would be different if everyone voted? Even the study he cited said only a handful of seats switched because of the law. So instead of Obama winning 52.9% of the vote, maybe he'd win 53.4%. That's not a big difference. He doesn't argue that it would change outcomes, only that we'd get a better view of what adults want in general instead of voting adults. Is this argument really the strongest one he could make?
2) Why should this be a goal? Who cares about this?
In summary, after reading this opinion, I'm bewildered. He has presented an extremely weak case for this issue, so weak, that it seems there must be something else motivating him that he doesn't discuss. Peter Orszag, I've been told, is a pretty bright guy, and generally his opinions are much better thought out than this. Maybe this piece is an outcome of a lost bet.
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Let's Grow Government!
I would like to propose a new rule.
Anytime someone says we spend less money on X or if we spend more money on X things would be better for a group of people, they should be required to propose where the money will come from. Of course, liberals will always say they can get the money by raising taxes on the rich.
Do they have any other answer to that question? One reason we have the budget problems we do is that people always propose new spending but reducing spending is incredibly difficult because no one compares the relative benefits of spending on X versus Y. No one ever says spending money on X is more important than Y so let's shift government spending patterns. Instead, they say it would be beneficial to spend on X so let's spend on X.
Anytime someone says we spend less money on X or if we spend more money on X things would be better for a group of people, they should be required to propose where the money will come from. Of course, liberals will always say they can get the money by raising taxes on the rich.
Do they have any other answer to that question? One reason we have the budget problems we do is that people always propose new spending but reducing spending is incredibly difficult because no one compares the relative benefits of spending on X versus Y. No one ever says spending money on X is more important than Y so let's shift government spending patterns. Instead, they say it would be beneficial to spend on X so let's spend on X.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)