To PPACA Supporters

To PPACA supporters.

Let us admit that among people who are well informed on the state of healthcare in the USA there is agreement that PPACA is horrible but the supporters think that it is clearly better than nothing and that it is unlikely that better laws are attainable at this time. I can certainly understand and respect that position but I think supporters should do more bashing the bad aspects of the law.  They should also bash the dishonest politicians that made the law, of course always pointing out that the politicians on the other side are just as bad or worse.

The bad aspects of PPACA:

The fact that the PPACA does almost nothing on the supply side is very disappointing.  Lower cost/prices would help everyone.

The employer mandate is a horrible thing.  The push should be in the other direction.  People do not even know what  they are spending on healthcare!

You cannot subsidize the median person so it is an outrage that subsidies go up to $95,000.  The politicians are scamming rationally ignorant voters taxing people $1 to subsidize them with $1!

Capping the deductibles at under $7,000 is also a very bad policy they should be pushing people with above median income in fair health toward much high deductibles.

The tax on Medical equipment manufacturers is a dishonest, underhanded way to tax the people.

Mandating birth control is a Democrat party give away to a voting block important to them.

The 3 to 1 cap on old people's insurance makes no sense but for the fact that old people vote more than young people. Corruption.

There is very little evidence that many of the mandated coverages make medical sense.

The good aspects of PPACA:

People with preexisting conditions can get coverage easier and at a lower cost. 

The exchanges have the potential if structured correctly to lower that marginal tax on those people near the medicaid cut off. 

What people have called "death panels", really the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB),  medicare might stop some care that has not shown net benefit.

Politicians and the Minimum Wage

Hide the costs show the benefit. 

Who pays for the minimum wage increase.  If it were a tax who would it fall on?

It clarifies things to think in terms of consumption so for the minimum wage workers to consume more who consumes less.

In the short run business owner who hire minimum wage workers will consume less.  Why do we want them to consume less rather than using a broad based tax.

In the long run consumers who consume products and services produced by business who hire minimum wage workers will consume less.  Why do we want them to consume less rather than using a broad based tax.

In the all time periods minimum wage laws tend to decrease employment so the low skilled unemployed consume less . Why do we want them to consume less rather than using a broad based tax.

A negative income tax or a basic income guaranty seems far superior  for everyone except for  the politicians. The minimum wage lets the politicians hide the costs show the benefit.

From the comments on moving bad students to "good" schools.

This is a comment by eccdogg on this blog post.


There is a pretty nice natural experiment on this with the comparison of Wake Co (Raleigh) and Mecklenburg Co. (Charlotte) schools in NC.

Raleigh for a long time has tried to balance schools by income so that the percentage of free and reduced lunch students was similar across schools.

Charlotte ended busing quite a while ago and instead uses neighborhood schools combined with increased spending on low income schools.

On the face of it it looks like Raleigh’s approach is better because Raleigh’s schools on average do better on statewide test. But that is mainly a composition error. Raleigh is richer and whiter than Charlotte. When you look at minorities and low income students they do BETTER in Charlotte than in Raleigh. Raleigh has fewer failing schools but more failing children, they just hide them amongst better performing students.

Personally I can see how upper class parent involvement could actually be to the determent of lower achieving kids. Upper achievers and lower achievers have different need and need to be taught at a different pace. An upper income parent will advocate for the school setting its strategy based on what is the best for the upper income child. I see this at my daughter’s school (in Raleigh) that is mainly upper income with lower income kids bused in. The school is great with lots of electives and an accelerated pace. This is great for my daughter, but if a kid is struggling with the 3 Rs as many low income kids are they could easily get left behind and all of us middle/upper income parents would not care in the least.

The Good Samaritan Revisited

When telling the story of the good Samaritan Jesus was speaking to the Jews.  The Jews despised the Samaritans. The good Samaritan was part of the despised group not the other way around. (It is amazing that people get this wrong but they do, I am writing this because I just read some writing about it that was wrong.) The act of love was toward the despising not toward the despised group which is more powerful and perplexing.

It is as if he said in 1950 USA, a white man traveled to a southern town and on the read he was robbed and black man came along and bought him clothes and put him up at a hotel. (That always reminds me that John Brown was saved from drowning by a black man.)

At the end of the story he says go and do likewise. I think that he means even those who despise you are your neighbors and should be treated with love!

Also note that the same Jesus said the poor will always be with and advocated some charity toward them but the Jew who was robbed in the story of the good Samaritan was not poor but a person who fell into a calamity.

The story is far more interesting that many think.

The one who gave the charity was in the despised group. The act of love was toward to despising group which is more powerful and perplexing. It is as if he said in 1950 USA, a white man was robbed and black man came along and bought him clothes and put him up at a hotel. At the end of the story he says go and do likewise. I think that he means even those who despise you are your neighbors!
Also note that same Jew said the poor will always be with and advocated some charity toward them but the Jew who was robbed in the story was not poor but fell into a calamity.
The story is far more interesting that you described it.
- See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/11/a-theory-of-good-intentions.html#comment-157927121

The one who gave the charity was in the despised group. The act of love was toward to despising group which is more powerful and perplexing. It is as if he said in 1950 USA, a white man was robbed and black man came along and bought him clothes and put him up at a hotel. At the end of the story he says go and do likewise. I think that he means even those who despise you are your neighbors!
Also note that same Jew said the poor will always be with and advocated some charity toward them but the Jew who was robbed in the story was not poor but fell into a calamity.
The story is far more interesting that you described it.
- See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/11/a-theory-of-good-intentions.html#comment-157927121

The one who gave the charity was in the despised group. The act of love was toward to despising group which is more powerful and perplexing. It is as if he said in 1950 USA, a white man was robbed and black man came along and bought him clothes and put him up at a hotel. At the end of the story he says go and do likewise. I think that he means even those who despise you are your neighbors!
Also note that same Jew said the poor will always be with and advocated some charity toward them but the Jew who was robbed in the story was not poor but fell into a calamity.
The story is far more interesting that you described it.
- See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/11/a-theory-of-good-intentions.html#comment-157927121

The one who gave the charity was in the despised group. The act of love was toward to despising group which is more powerful and perplexing. It is as if he said in 1950 USA, a white man was robbed and black man came along and bought him clothes and put him up at a hotel. At the end of the story he says go and do likewise. I think that he means even those who despise you are your neighbors!
Also note that same Jew said the poor will always be with and advocated some charity toward them but the Jew who was robbed in the story was not poor but fell into a calamity.
The story is far more interesting that you described it.
- See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/11/a-theory-of-good-intentions.html#comment-157927121

The one who gave the charity was in the despised group. The act of love was toward to despising group which is more powerful and perplexing. It is as if he said in 1950 USA, a white man was robbed and black man came along and bought him clothes and put him up at a hotel. At the end of the story he says go and do likewise. I think that he means even those who despise you are your neighbors!
Also note that same Jew said the poor will always be with and advocated some charity toward them but the Jew who was robbed in the story was not poor but fell into a calamity.
The story is far more interesting that you described it.
- See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/11/a-theory-of-good-intentions.html#comment-157927121

The Cost of Child Birth in the USA

By ELISABETH ROSENTHALat the New York Times

From 2004 to 2010, the prices that insurers paid for childbirth — one of the most universal medical encounters — rose 49 percent for vaginal births and 41 percent for Caesarean sections in the United States, with average out-of-pocket costs rising fourfold, according to a recent report by Truven that was commissioned by three health care groups. The average total price charged for pregnancy and newborn care was about $30,000 for a vaginal delivery and $50,000 for a C-section, with commercial insurers paying out an average of $18,329 and $27,866, the report found. 


With cost like that it does not so much matter who pays. What needs to be addressed is cost. PPACA just changes who pays.

A Good Use for all those Psychology Majors?

From E. Fuller Torrey at the national review
Untreated mentally ill individuals are now responsible for at least 10 percent of all homicides and half of the mass killings such as those at Virginia Tech, Tucson, Aurora, Newtown, and the Washington Navy Yard.

We are graduating a huge, huge, huge number of psychology majors who could help treat these people cheaply if we allowed them to prescribe anti-psychotic drugs but we do not! It seems we must treat the insanity of our government.

I am not saying that I am sure that allowing all psychology grads to prescribe anti-psychotic drugs would have a significant positive effect, I do not know that, but I see very little downside to trying it.  It only seems right didn't they learn something in those 4 years?