The Battle over the Definition of Insurance

As the left is apt to do, they are trying to redefine insurance. Actually, "trying" is probably the wrong word, as they've mostly done it. As John Goodman has said often on his blog and Mankiw alludes to here, in the past insurance was designed so that each participant paid his expected costs. This means that if I had a 50/50 chance of a $10,000 health condition, I paid $5,000 over the long-run. Presumably, someone else would do the same (or many, many people). On average, the insurance company would just about break even (not quite), and the half of the insured who had the bad coin flip weren't bankrupted by chance.

In this design, the lucky subsidize the unlucky, but everyone pays his expected costs. This is still how most insurance works-automobile, life, travel, shipping, everything but health.

In the past decade (which is about as far back as I can remember for this debate), the left has argued that insurance is meant for the healthy to subsidize the unhealthy, which just isn't true. That's no longer insurance.

John Cohn says men should subsidize women and E.J. Dionne says pro-lifers should be happy to subsidize women's higher insurance.

I strongly recommend reading Mankiw's post. I heartily agree. I still don't know how to handle the genetic issues that are out of anyone's control, but we should all be able to agree that we shouldn't subsidize choices that increase total costs. If someone makes decisions that increase their own personal costs, they should be responsible for them, they shouldn't be spread across society.

We should be very wary of liberals re-defining words. They're very adamant about it--subsidies, insurance, fair are all examples.

Anti-Science Left

I've posted before about how the left often criticizes the right for being anti-science. There are a few areas where the left consistently ignores scientific research and results. One of them is Genetically modified foods. It's likely because they're against big business, big ag, and think everything that isn't all natural, open range, organic, pesticide free, herbicide free, and grown in your own back yard is bad for you.

Even Liberals Don't get Obamacare

You may have seen this clip where Jon Stewart asks Kathleen Sebelius about the health care law. Jon Stewart earns his bread by pointing out the foolishness of politics (mainly Republicans) and mildly advocates liberal agenda items. Him having issues with Obamacare reveals how poor a job the administration has done selling this law. (You could say it's because Obamacare is a disaster, but Stewart doesn't even understand it, as I'm sure most Democrats do.)  Basically, my theory is that most Democrat voters approve of Obamacare because it expands coverage, and that's all they care about. They don't care about the details of how it's done, or all the other rules that have been put in place to regulate the market.  More people will be insured, therefore, it's a great law.

Secondly, I don't understand how Kathleen Sebelius could be so bad at answering these questions. If I had Sebelius's job, I would say that, while we could delay the individual mandate, it would dismantle the rest of the health care law. By doing this, X million people wouldn't get coverage in the first year of implementation, insurance companies would decide not to participate after next year (they're already locked in for 2014). It would be a huge disaster (for the healthcare law).

All they have to do is convince people who are already inclined to support Obamacare, and they can't do that!

Global Warming Slowdown

Rush Limbaugh had a great point on his radio show recently.  Now that the Global Warmists have admitted the fact that the world hasn't warmed over the past 15 years, they should be celebratory. If global warming is bad, then no global warming should be good, right?  They can still be worried over the long run, believing the world will continue to heat up, but now there's a chance things won't be so bad. They don't see any cause for celebration.

This is like the slowdown in health costs. Liberals are very excited, even though it's possible it might be short-term. They're trying to convince themselves, though, that it's permanent (and likely due to Obamacare).

In both cases, there was an unexpected change in the trend, and in both cases, the change was inexplicable.  Why the different reactions?

Liberals have a vested interest in global warming. If it doesn't happen, they look like fools, they stop receiving government grants for researching it, and they lose what they crave: control over other people's lives.

One of the many criticisms Republicans have over the global warming debate is that they don't believe the models.  This new development supports that criticism. If scientists don't know why the world has not heated over the past 15 years, their model is missing something important. Republicans think that the climate is too complex for current methods to predict--there's too many interactions between the separate components. We don't really know how the world will react to warmer temperatures; it may have some kind of self-regulator. Who knows?

Democrats Admit Actions Politically-Motivated

The news isn't that their actions are politically motivated. The news is that they admitted it.

Democrats continuously claim that their actions are noble--they're doing the best for the American people.  Those evil Republicans, however, always have nefarious political motivations. If you follow the news closely, you would have noticed how frequently they brought up Mitch McConnell saying his main goal was to defeat President Obama.

Well, here's Democrat James Clyburn admitting that they designed the ACA to help them win elections. Now Republicans have the opportunity to take the moral high ground. Why wasn't the sole goal of this legislation to insure the uninsured and bring costs down--to help people?  How many people have to go uninsured so that the Democrats can win in 2014? How many people are going to die for their blatant politicking?

I expect to hear next to nothing about this development from Republicans, from the media, and from the Democrats who endlessly criticized McConnell.

If You're not a Socialist, You're a Monster

Neil Irwin believes that if you spend more than what he deems appropriate on a bottle of wine (apparently it only applies to goods that are bought and sold second-hand for some reason).

If you are about to drink a $3,500 bottle of wine, you have to think for just a minute about this option instead: Drink a $100 bottle of wine that is about as good, but from a less renowned chateau. And deploy the other $3,400 to pay for malaria-preventing mosquito nets in Africa.

What makes $100 an acceptable amount? I have no idea. I guess it's because I'm not as morally developed as Neil Irwin.

If the person who drinks a $3,500 bottle of wine also donates $1 million to charity is he still a monster? I guess so, because that's what Neil Irwin said. I'm glad we have his clear and irrefutable arguments to help us understand what's right and wrong.

How the Media Deceive

Sarah Kliff's title is a little more neutral, but if you read this story, and think about it, it's clear that one title is misleading and the other is accurate. It's true that both title's are technically correct, but one leaves out relevant information (the fact that Maryland's rates are already pretty low), and, therefore, provides no information about how Obamacare will affect premiums.

I would've given the paper a pass if it said something like "Rates could fall by as much as X %".