Month: February 2008

Connecting Clinton with Romney

Post author By David
Post date February 26, 2008
6 Comments on Connecting Clinton with Romney

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

I’m sure that title sounds like a kind of heresy here in Utah, but I can’t help noticing in the last week that the supporters of Hillary Clinton are sounding very much like the supporters of Mitt Romney were sounding after the Florida primary (myself included). Unless they turn out to be less mistaken about the upcoming primaries than I was about February 5th they will soon have to adjust to the new reality in the Democratic party.

Tags national candidates, primaries

State

Another Year-Round Idea

The Spectrum did a good job in Year-round Advantages of listing pluses and minuses to the idea of year-round school. Though the title says this is about the advantages they are good enough to acknowledge the well-known drawbacks. I also found the comments of stgeorgeteacher interesting in highlighting the difficulties that teachers can face with this kind of schedule.

As I read the article I began to think that while we are considering major changes to the structure of our education we might as well go all out and consider all the possibilities. What if we not only changed the schedule to have four separate blocks of classes each year but also changed the classes so that we have a higher degree of granularity in our grade levels. What if we replaced grades k – 6 with grades A – Z and students would have the chance to advance one grade during each block of classes. In one year a student could advance from grade D to grade H. There would be room for a student to be held back twice over 7 years and still get through all their grades before they arrive at middle school.

I leave it to readers to decide how serious I am about that particular proposal, but I’d like to know if there is any reason that we should not consider other proposals to change the system while we’re in the mood to discuss the issue of primary education.

Tags Education, year-round school

National State

Buyers of Medical Services

Post author By David
Post date February 23, 2008
9 Comments on Buyers of Medical Services

Reach Upward nails it again when he talks about Serving Medical Customers.

One of the primary rules of economics is that suppliers do their best to supply what buyers actually demand. Who are the real buyers of medical services? Not you. Unless you pay for everything yourself or have only catastrophic insurance, you are not the buyer. . . The real buyers — the real power entities in purchasing medical services —are the government (via Medicare) and insurance companies.

Since suppliers provide what buyers demand, let’s ask ourselves what the real buyers of medical services demand. Do they demand the best possible medical outcome for each patient? Nope. It’s not possible for them to do that. So they design systems that aspire to that lofty goal. These systems seek to demand proof that proper procedures are being followed and tightly control what procedures will be covered.

Of course, to administer these systems, the government and insurers spawn massive bureaucracies of paper pushers. Medical practitioners actually serve their buyers quite well, supplying the desired paperwork. They report procedures that will bring payment. . .

Electronic Health Records (EHRs) have been touted as a way to improve the medical system. But it turns out that EHRs do not improve actual medical outcomes. This is because they are only a more efficient way of pushing paper around through the bureaucracy.

Every time I read anything about our health care system I come to the same conclusion – the best kind of insurance we could have would be catastrophic insurance that has incentives built in to reward consumers who avail themselves of preventive care. With the current push in Utah to provide universal coverage we cannot emphasize this issue too much. If we want to make the system better we must attack at the actual systemic problems (the shifting of the buyer role from individuals to corporations and government entities) rather than simply trying to massage the current system to assuage some acute and visible symptoms of systemic problems (the cost of health care and insurance).

Tags economics, health care

culture

Imports and Jobs

I had asked whether our markets would be better served with a tit for tat approach to tariffs rather than a more dedicated insistence on free trade on imports. If I had any lingering doubts on the subject they were laid to rest after reading Why Politicians Are Wrong about Imports and Jobs. Unless the graph in that post is entirely fabricated the free markets are the beneficiaries if they import goods that have been subsidized by more closed markets at a lower price than they could produce themselves.

Admittedly the graph is a bit confusing with the vertical scale changing from the left side of the graph to the right, but the trend is that over the last 48 years imports have doubled while unemployment has been cut in half. While these imports might take specific jobs away from the country they do not reduce the total number of jobs. The turnover creates the added benefit of encouraging those in the workforce to keep improving themselves. The relative ease and complacency that would undoubtedly come from a static economy would guarantee that we would become less competitive in a global market.

Update 2/27/08: Thanks to the persistent questions of mackenzie I went back to look at the graph to see if I had missed anything. A more accurate reading of the graph (remember the confusion I talked about with the different vertical scales) shows that imports went from 4% to 16% of GDP (a four-fold increase, not double) and unemployment fell from 9% to 6% (it fell by one third rather than by one half). While the actual statistics have changed I think the conclusion remains that imports do not appear to adversely affect employment rates.

Tags economics

State

Proud To Pay My Share

I liked the sentiments expressed by Chad at UtahOpinions about paying a fair share for government. It’s easy to accuse those who advocate for smaller government of being stingy, selfish, or just not wanting to work for the best good of society, but many people feel like this:

Believe it or not I am proud to pay taxes to support our national interests (i.e. national security, immigration, roads, airports, etc.). But my pride ends there. . .

It is also a reminder to me why I joined the Republican party in the first place. As part of the Republican platform are these statements:

I BELIEVE government must practice fiscal responsibility and allow individuals to keep more of the money they earn.

I BELIEVE the proper role of government is to provide for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private organizations and that the best government is that which governs least.

I BELIEVE the most effective, responsible and responsive government is government closest to the people.

Huh? You mean Republicans stand for these principles? Well, at least I know I do and I thought Republicans did.

Chad does a nice job of breaking down how much he’s paying in taxes for various government programs. Like Chad I’m proud to pay my fair share for government. I won’t go to any lengths to minimize my tax burden, I just take whatever deductions are simplest and that makes it easy for me to forget why most people find tax season such a headache – I do my taxes in a matter of two hours because I don’t do any financial contortions to reduce my tax burden.

That does not stop me from doing anything I can to remind my representatives that I’m looking for government to do as little for me as possible – I’d rather be responsible for my own success or failure without paying for a government safety net (with all it’s inflations of inefficiency) for everyone regardless of the legitimacy of their need.

Tags connections, government, taxes

National

No Good Delegate Answer for DNC

Post author By David
Post date February 20, 2008
2 Comments on No Good Delegate Answer for DNC

With the debate over the role of super-delegates and the delegates from Florida and Michigan in choosing their nominee, the Democratic Party finds itself in a no-win situation. Without the unpleasant idea that the super-delegates might have to publicly buck the democratic primary voters to give the nomination to Senator Clinton, we would not hear the Clinton Campaign calling to have the delegates in those states that she won (Clinton was the only major candidate on the ballot in Michigan) seated to make the race more level.

If the party chooses not to seat delegates from those states they open the door for Republicans to attack them for not backing up their “make every vote count” rhetoric.

If they do choose to seat delegates from Florida and Michigan they face a whole range of paths to bruise themselves. First – any delegate seating will undermine the authority of the party to affect the primary schedule (that power struggle is what started this whole mess). If they choose to accept that defeat they then have to choose how to seat the delegates. They can take the existing results and hear people cry fowl who chose not to vote, or who chose to vote in the Republican primary, based on the fact that their votes would not count in the selection of the Democratic nominee. If they chose to hold new primaries in those states they have to cover the costs or persuade the states to pay for a second election and they have to choose who to allow to participate. Michigan has open primaries so they run the risk of having people vote in their new primary who already voted in the Republican primary (the reverse of what Markos advocated as Michigan arrived). If they choose to limit their primaries in any way it can only be an arbitrary line.

Interestingly, if this same eternal nomination fight were happening in the GOP most of the problems outlined above would not exist because they chose to respond to the states that abandoned the party calendar by only stripping half their delegates so the original votes can stand and represent the votes taken without undermining party authority.

When I went searching for the Daily Kos link above, I thought it was funny to discover that Markos made many of the same arguments I just made on this issue. He recommends seating the delegates from both states and splitting them 50/50 between Obama and Clinton. Why don’t we just award an extra 200 delegates for each state that obeyed the party rules with the same 50/50 split condition while we’re at it? A 50/50 split is meaningless in deciding the nominee. It expands the pool of delegates, but adding 200 delegates to the delegate count of each candidate only means that there is a larger convention. Getting 1191 delegates to win the Republican nomination is just the same as getting 2025 delegates to win the Democratic nomination – the numbers may differ, but it all comes down to who gets 50% + 1. Besides that, the 50/50 split is unenforceable – either they have a choice, or they have no vote to cast. There’s no point in inflating the numbers to say “Welcome to the convention, check your seat for a number – odds vote for Clinton, evens vote for Obama.”

Tags connections, DNC, elections, parties

General

Free Marketer’s Dilemma

I’m a proponent of the value of free markets and their ability to enrich people. The problem is that the free market only works in a closed system, in other words a free market is not favored when intersecting with markets which are being manipulated. The issue of how to compensate for intersecting our supposedly free market with other markets which impose duties and protective tariffs on imported good led me to think of the Prisoner’s dilemma from game theory.

Briefly, the prisoner’s dilemma is a situation where the results of your actions will vary depending on the actions of others over whom you have no control. If one market imposes tariffs and the other does not the market with tariffs benefits at the expense of the other market. If both markets impose tariffs then the playing field is level, but both are worse off than if neither of them impose tariffs.

Thankfully there may be a solution to the problem by studying the prisoners dilemma. Our economic interactions specifically resemble a specific form of the prisoner’s dilemma called The iterated prisoner’s dilemma. Under this specific variation the interactions are repeated so that the participants have a history of interactions. In a competition of computerized players the winning algorithm was one called “tit for tat” (later improved versions have been classed as “tit for tat with forgiveness”). This kind of a strategy encourages others to play nice without simply being a doormat for those who wish to use tariffs.

Does this sound like it would work in international economics?

Tags economics, game theory, international, issues

National

Fixing America’s Woes

I’m not a huge fan of Mark Towner but he caught my attention with THE 545 PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR AMERICA’S WOES. My first reaction was “you know what, he’s right.” Further reflection helped me realize that it can never be as simple as voting out those 545 people. For one thing, 75 of those people are not up for reelection in any given cycle (at least 66 Senators and 9 Supreme Court Justices). Second, the justices on the Supreme Court serve for life – as they ought to – so throwing them out is not an option. Third, there is an entire federal court system below the Supreme Court that has a more continuous and immediate effect on the nation than the Supreme Court. I think you would have to count all those other federal judges as well. And fourth, what happens if we simply vote out all those who are up for reelection? We would get lots of new names in the federal government, but no real guarantee of significant change.

That fourth issue is the real sticking point against Mark’s declaration. The solution is hinted at by the work of Newt Gingrich (I’m not a real fan of Newt either) when he talks about the 513,000 elected officials throughout the country. In order to fix the problems we face, what we really need is for the millions of voters to educate themselves on the issues and elect people at all levels of government who will put government back in it’s proper place. The leaders of cities and states should demand that they be free from a federal government which would dictate the minutia of their responsibilities.

Each city and state would be free to find the solutions that best meet the needs of their citizens – which was how our country was designed to function – rather than ceding that responsibility to, or having that responsibility forcibly taken by, an overreaching federal government. We should not expect that every city and every state will look the same or act the same.We cannot expect that every person should be equally at home at any place in this vast country. Instead we should allow our more local governments the freedom to express the culture of their own citizens without fear of offending people who have no interest or connection to their locale.

Maybe we could even learn to practice a little more tolerance by doing this.

Tags citizenship, federalism, government

culture pictures

Our Chinese Finger Trap

Socialism is like a Chinese finger trap. Playing with it just a bit look harmless and even fun, but once you start on that road it much easier to get further trapped than it is to free yourself.

Chinese Finger Trap

Image based on stuck for lyfe by Chris Martin.

I read a great example of this in the comments on an article about some proposed seatbelt legislation – specifically the following interchange:

No mandate please | 8:43 a.m. Feb. 14, 2008

If I don’t want to wear a seatbelt, that’s my business. But the sponsors of this bill will cry…”it’s about safety”. Let’s all be honest. Bottom line…it’s not about safety. It’s about revenue. It’s about mining the drivers in Utah for more money over a silly (soon to be) law.

Legislators should stick to real issues. Seatbelt laws are unconstitutional.

Anonymous | 9:06 a.m. Feb. 14, 2008

How many people out there are not willing to wear a seatbelt but more than willing to sue the insurance company for injuries sustained for not wearing a seatbelt.

Anonymous | 9:18 a.m. Feb. 14, 2008

It is your business as long as you don’t expect Utah taxpayers to pick up your medical bills if you are out of work or disabled. Sort of like a smoker. Do it if you want but don’t expect me to pay your bills if you end up with cancer.

Really? | 9:18 a.m. Feb. 14, 2008

Do you really think that not wearing a seat bealt is just your business? Let’s say you don’t have insurance, like many Utahns, who is going to pay your medical bills? You will probably end up on Medicaid and the tax payers will have to pay for you… now let’s say you do have insurance. Do you think there is a possibility that my insurance rates will go up because of your expensive medical bills? Now let’s say you have a wife and kids, and you die due to your neglect, what happens to them? They may go on public assistance as well. They start getting Social Security death benefits. Can you see that more is at stake than “your business”?

YES REALLY | 9:38 a.m. Feb. 14, 2008

Hey Really… Yes I think it is just my business or whoever it is that chooses to not wear a seatbelt. You have a good point on the insurance statement, but that is just one of many things that could make your rates go up or have people get on public assistance. People can start getting Social Security death benefits from anything that might take someones life. I have to agree with the above comment, I do believe its not about safety, it really is about the money. We should have a choice whether or not to wear a seatbelt. Remember this is America.

Sagacious Inquisitor | 9:58 a.m. Feb. 14, 2008

To Really.
Sadly, your comments are based on the Socialistic notion that somehow society is responsible for me. Granted, Socialism is the dangerous system into which we have already slipped too far.

Once we already have a little socialism – such as government paying the costs of health care for those who can’t afford the choices they have made – it gets easy to use that as a lever to argue that the choices they make are no longer theirs to make but are within the reach of government to make those choices for them. The problem is that each time such an argument is made it becomes that much more difficult to be free to make our own choices – responsible for the consequences of our choices, and not responsible for the choices of others.

It is too easy to paint proponents of individual responsibility as uncaring towards those who are less fortunate than they are, but that is an unfair characterization of the position. I am fully in favor of helping someone in need. I absolutely desire that doctors be paid for their time and effort on behalf of people who cannot afford the health care they need.

The difference is that I believe we do a disservice to those who receive such help when the help comes from a nameless, faceless, impersonal government agency rather than coming from caring neighbors or relatives. Not only do they feel no urgency to improve their situations or to repay the kindness they have received in their time of need when aid comes from such an impersonal source, but it is impossible for government to fully tailor that aid to their specific situation which opens up the misfortune of some people to be used as an opportunity for gain by other unscrupulous people. With caring individuals involved in rendering the needed assistance there are greater safeguards against those who would take such advantage and more incentive for those receiving aid to lift themselves as much as possible.

If the vehicle of government could be used to eliminate social ills such as poverty or homelessness we would have found that solution after decades of government intervention. For all the efforts to use government for those noble ends we show little if any progress.

Tags Elevated, government, responsibility, socialism

culture