Welfare, Medicine, Misc

I agree, welfare should go,” by “Aaron,” tdaxp, http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/01/08/wages_and_prices.html, 10 January 2005.

Another apt reply, another rant:

I agree, welfare should go. Let’s get rid of the tax havens for the wealthy, like “commercial” vehicles they’ve written off as business expense yet use as a private car. ( Just take a drive through any bar parking lot on the weekend. Sure are a lot of commercial plates and trucks with the names of businesses on the side. )

I disagree. Society should take care of those unable to fend for themselves. Additionally, some social causes (like college loans or encouraging capital accumulation) may have a positive return on investment, others (tsunami aid) help our strategic interests, and others (space exploration, farm subsidies) have more sentimental aims.

Do I agree with every form of welfare for every recipient? No, but it’s still the right thing for us to do.

Let’s stop paying for liver transplants for alcoholics and gastric bypass surgery for the obese.

The former sounds wiser than the latter. Every liver given to an alcoholic is one that cannot be given to someone else. Additionally, gastric bypasses are much cheaper and (by shrinking the stomach) directly encourage healthier behavior.

A bit later…

Yes, let’s limit healthcare costs, perhaps by heavier legislation against health insurance companies and malpractice insurance companies.

I’d rather not kill patients by discouraging medicine in the process.

How about private savings to allay the cost of procedures?

The problem may be too structural. Before 1980 there was no correlation between health care spending and increased life expectency. Given the hundreds of thousands medicine kills every where, we have an immensely sick system with two bright lights (prescription drugs and assembly line surgeries) some dim bulbs (miscellaneous operations) and incredible black holes (malpractice by all parties, governmental failures).

It’s not fair for me to pay in on every paycheck for something I don’t use, only to have them raise my rates the first time I do. I’d be happy to put money into an account month after month that when it reaches a certain amount, say $5k, I can quit knowing that anything that might *likely* befall me won’t cost that much. However, let’s not cap the amount of money insurance will pay. Katie got in a car accident. Her insurance refuses to pay for another cent of her treatment for spinal and shoulder injuries, though her affliction remains. I promise the amount of money her family has paid into insurance over the past 20 years has made more than enough to cover her ongoing treatment. Yeah, I know insurance is a business, but let’s cut some of the fat. I can imagine a doctor botching a heart transplant, and having the family of the deceased be told “sorry, we only pay $20,000 for a heart transplant… can you speak with the doctor? oh no, sorry, he went golfing about 10 minutes after your husband died.”

That’s a terrible problem. We have a terrible system.

Medicare spends a quarter of a trillion dollars every year. About 30% of that, or $75 billion is psend in the last year of life of a patient. About 40% of that, or $30 billion is spent in the last thirty days.

That’s a lot of money that’s being gobbled up. And that sort of waste is not isolated. My point isn’t to argue against old-age medicine — it’s to say we have a terribly, terribly messed-up system that neither candidate would fix. Welfare schemes — from support for heroic medicine to the stranglehold of the AMA and ABA guilds to people using civil lawsuits for justice and not remedy to price controls to price supports — stall badly needed fixes.

Let’s do something so that corporations aren’t so beholden to their stock price. How many companies are doing just fine but find themselves cutting corners or laying off people to boost Wall Street estimates? Forcing companies to rate a “strong buy” quarter after quarter makes some profitable companies do things they don’t need to do, and possibly take unnecessary risks (think Animation Factory… double sales every year? why? is everyone getting paid? is there money left on the table at the end of the month? why feel the need to double that amount just to be considered viable? )

Instead of giving more welfare to employees and management, I’d rather make corporations more beholden to their stock price. Upper management in almost any major company routinely betrays investors and padds their own pockets. Why are CEOs paid so much? Even when they perform badly? Too many high-paying jobs are protected from market discipline.

(In the AF example cited, the parent company has sustained rounds of lay-offs and is in terrible financial straights. Bankruptcy would ruin employees and investors, and put upper-management out of work.)

Let’s stop spending ourselves into oblivion.


Let’s stop starting wars where wars aren’t properly planned for.

And let’s never “plan properly” until its too late. Let’s horrify our enemies worse than they scared us. Let’s never allow them to breathe.

Let’s look into some alternative energy, rather than a limp-wristed acknowledgement, perhaps by a President whose circle of friends’ livelihoods aren’t tied into oil prices?

Agreed. One of Bush’s great failures is not dramatically expanding nuclear energy.

Let’s invest some money into research that will benefit our country, rather than the create a cash cow for the discovering organization.

Let’s not discourage discovery. And let new discoveries ever increase the general welfare.

Maybe huge tax breaks or some other perk for private research firms who don’t put a firm lock and chain on any advancement?

Good idea!

Let’s start making a difference for people who need a difference made. I now make more money than both my parents do combined. I have investments. I’m one of those people who are benefitting from some of the breaks for the wealthy. And I don’t like it.”

Let’s encourage giving!

Party of the Future

Age gap may be trouble for Bush: Social Security plan divides young, old,” by Susan Page, USA Today, http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20050111/1a_lede11.art.htm, 11 January 2005.

Party of the Future v. Party of the Past

A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday found that most young voters support private accounts even if that means cuts to guaranteed benefits. By 55%-42%, those under 30 call it a “good idea.”

But the older the voter, the stronger the opposition. By 63%-33%, those over 50 call it a “bad idea.”

Not always, but at times like this Bush’s courage and heroism amaze me. Supporting the future, even at a very real political risk. We have a great President.

Homosexuality (only for the trivia)

I thought I would just make 3 unfounded points with a rainbow (no irony intended) summary point at the end, but I found I had too much to say,” by “Aaron,” tdaxp, http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/01/10/denormalization.html, 11 January 2005.

Free from the constraints of the practical, I give a rambling reply to Aaron’s well-thought-out post.

“I thought I would just make 3 unfounded points with a rainbow (no irony intended) summary point at the end, but I found I had too much to say.

1. Few people have ever chosen to be gay.
– A number would like not to be, I’m sure, but usually from societal pressure. Much like you can’t force yourself to be attracted to a man, homosexuals cannot force themselves to be “normal” and be attracted to a woman. I challenge you to find me evidence to the contrary, and the Cato Institute and National Review don’t count. I’ve read accounts of the anguish faced by homosexuals who are attempting to “normalize” themselves, whether through counseling or faith. The Mormons will even find you a wife to help you get back to being “normal.” A fair number of these accounts end with suicide. Homosexuality is not a choice. The anguish caused by homosexuality is the fault of intolerant society. Substitute “black” or “mentally disabled” or “short” into your arguments and hear how disgusting you sound.

I agree that few males have chosen to be homosexual. As far as I know National Review has never published an articles to the contrary, and CATO’s socially libertarianism would make them unlikely to pursue one. Likewise, few people have chosen not to be homosexual.

Homosexual anguish has several causes. Social incompatibility is not the least among them, but others are clear too. All-male circles have less impulse-control than all-female or mixed circles. So male homosexuals can be expected to engage in more actions with less forethought than others. Related to this is their status as disease vectors. In other words, dumb decisions makes death makes people sad.

“Black” cannot be substituted because blackness does not determine behavior.

“Mentally disabled” is a status of injury. Mental disability overwhelmingly affects behavior. It is an extremely wide category, but its fair to say that a good portion of the anguish the mentally disabled, or any disabled, feel is because they are disabled. That is, because of real concrete disabilities that prevent them from pursuing their dreams.

“Short” is ambiguous. Midgets clearly are physically disabled, while the shorter-than-average or just shorter-than-average.

So to substitute with the sentence, “Homosexuality shall be eliminated”

Substituting “blacks” makes the sentence bizarre and implies genocide or at the very least vast biological interference. Substituting “mentally disability” makes the sentence hopeful — if all the sick were cured, and illness became preventable, we would live in a happier world. Substituting “shortness” is just weird.

2. Homosexuality is optional for a society.
– For a society perhaps, but not for an individual. However, there are other entirely optional things to society that I don’t see you rallying against. Let me list them:
– Biased news.
– Alcohol.
– Faith (even if it’s only for the trivia).

I agree that a homosexual individual would be hard-pressed to call his status “optional.” But more importantly…

Biased news and propoganda have existed in every society ever. Even if objectivity were possible, there are real society forces that warp news to make it pleasing to certain powers. No society has ever escaped this. This is as good as “proof” that biased news will always exist as is possible.

Alcohol is one of many drugs. Perhaps knowledge of fermentation can be supressed. But what society has been free of artificial stimulation? From alcohol to tobacco to marijuana to opium to incense stimulants worm there way in.

Faith comes from a Greek word that means “trust.” In Modern English it means “Faith in a higher order.” Whether God, the laws of nature, or History, faith seems inescapable.

When I say “homosexuality is optional” I do not mean “homosexuality can be expunged to create a virtuous society.” I mean “homosexuality has not existed in the vast majority of societies in human history.” Which leads to…

3. Gays have been persecuted a great deal throughout history. It’s not passed on as a genetic trait (that I’ve seen proven, anywhere). Natural selection should have taken care of it by now if it were. Again, few people have chosen to be gay and a large number would rather they weren’t.

It seems likely that some combination of genetics and socialization leads to homosexuality. I have no evidence — it just sounds right. But more substantively…

Gays have not been persecuted a great deal throughout history. If they were, we would see the ordinances of persecution. We would see somewhere the prohibitions. We would see something better than the weird, oddly-worded, and shellfish-strewn wreckages in Leviticus.

This is what I meant by “homosexuality is optional.” That it mostly does not exist.

Later, abbreviating some…

Heterosexuals spread disease as easily as homosexuals. The stigma that they’re carriers for HIV/AIDs is a holdover from the 80s, when the disease was misunderstood. The same measure of protection a heterosexual takes can prevent a homosexual from catching / spreading disease. Statistics might support your arguments,

Ok. So what I write is not a relic from the 1980s. Its statistics. The better AIDS is understood, the more the impact of homosexuals as vectors is known. One can argue that this classification is unfair, but its a conclusion that comes from the facts.

but they’d also support the following statements: blacks are criminals, young people are bad drivers, the Pope is Catholic.

If you correct for income, population size, and single-parenting, do you see more black criminals than white criminals? No. Because race does not change behavior.

If you correct for income, population size, and single-parenting, do you see more young bad drivers than middle aged bad drivers? Of course. Because young people have less impulse control and less fear than middle aged drivers. Youth is always everywhere a time of less control.

Statistics show post-correction differences between youth and non-youth and homosexuals and non-homosexuals because those categories matter. Such differences dissappear for blacks because race does not.

There are those that glorify the lifestyle and seek attention and perhaps some are driven to it by an out of control libido. For them, homosexuality may be a choice. But for the young man who hides something he cannot control, who fears persecution from an intolerant family and society, who tries to find solace in therapy or faith, only to be let down, I think the “opportunity cost” of homosexuality should have driven him to normalcy by now. So why did he kill himself rather than get married, raise 2.5 children, and buy a little white house out in the suburbs?”

Homosexuality, like first language, seems to be determined in childhood. The purpose of denormalization is prevention, not cure.

Freedom and Fear

“Iraqi Insurgents Using Bigger Bombs,” by Nick Wadhams, Sioux Falls Argus Leader, Page 1A (from Associated Press).

U.S. claims of the antidemocracy supported by the insurgents

“‘It’s fair to say that they are afraid of the elections, they are afraid of what the outcome will be, and they want to do everything they can to derail that process, because that’s just one more step toward their demise,” U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. James Hutton said.

Seem to be supported by the Sunni Ba’athi-Salafists themselves

In a suggestion that the insurgents were looking for new ways to intimate voters, a militant group posted threats in at least two towns warning it would deploy “highly trained” snpiers to target voters around Iraq during the elections.

While the Shia are desperate for democracy

The leader of Iraq’s largest Shiite Muslim political group said in an interview broadcast Monday that “if elections were postponted, this will lead to a serious legal problem because Iraq will be without a legitimate authority.”

“No legimate authority has the right to postpone the elections because this will lead to more problems,” said Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, head of Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

Which side supports freedom, and which terror? Which side should we defend, and which should we destroy?

Election, Stolen

We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Signatures,” by Matt Rosenberg, Sound Politics, http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/003455.html#003455, 11 January 2005 (from TKS).

The saga of the stolen election in Washington State continues

It’s all slipping away from the King County elections department, and you read about it here first, thanks to ace Sound Politics data-miner Stefan Sharkansky. The latest crushing revelation of institutional incompetence is the admission, reported to newspaper readers here in today’s Seattle Times, that the department’s Friday Jan. 7 estimate of 1,217 more gubernatorial votes than voters in King County was about 600 shy of the revised figure. Even then, county Elections Superintendent Bill Huennekens can only guess that the number of unnacounted for votes is “somewhere around 1,800.”

Democrat Christine Gregoire’s victory margin was 129 votes, and King County, of course, was where she “won” the election.

The “around 1,800” does not include the estimated 348 provisional ballots fed directly into the voting machines without inspection for legitimacy. That in itself is grounds for a new election.