Pangloss

Interesting. You remember those threads where KLB said that there is no safe level for smoking, right? It's been a few years; I wonder if the technology has changed.

I still haven't watched this; it's sitting on my Tivo. Did they actually go beyond singular cases of people who ran out of money, and actually show statistical analysis of how many people that's happening too, what percentage of the population that is, how much it costs the system, etc? iNow, that's a nice moral argument -- the closest I think I've ever seen you come to the pulpit! Such things don't carry a lot of weight with me, but it was nicely put. At the moment I'm more concerned about the fact that in order to balance the budget they're going to have to take twice as much money as they're taking right now. For starters. In my opinion, fix the economy, balance the budget, and fix the health care COSTS issue, and then we can look at whether we can afford the "moral obligation" of universal coverage.

On Thursday the US House passed a bill that proposes directing the Food and Drug Administration to regulate the tobacco industry. Interestingly, they would not actually be allowed to ban tobacco, but would instead be required to state what nicotine levels the companies could include in their products. Which in my mind raises a really significant question: Doesn't that put the FDA in the position of saying what nicotine levels are "safe"? I realize they won't state it that way, but that's how we normally view government regulation -- they're saying that this level is safe and this other level is not. At least that's how we normally view food and drug regulation. Drawing this kind of "it's not really safe but it's what we'll let them do, and you still shouldn't smoke" distinction seems really gray to me. What do you all think? http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-tobacco3-2009apr03,0,5223437.story

Tone it down, please. I think he was just generalizing and went too far, and he has said that he's trying to be more coherent in his posting language. Personally I am someone who comes from the same perspective as jackson33 regarding the playstations-versus-food argument, and you all will likely remember my whole census-based argument about the "poverty line", but I agree with you that there ARE homeless people in this country and there ARE people deciding between health care and rent. The better question he might have leveled is how many of them there are and how significant their problems are in terms of getting them fixed, or perhaps asking whether it's our obligation to fix them. But I agree that denying there are ANY is inaccurate -- you've provided evidence to that effect, and he's required to either counter that evidence or not make factual statements to the contrary; those are our rules, and I support your pointing them out. (Just be nicer about it... please?) Given the accuracy of our discussions here I believe that kind of distinction is not only important, it's actually better for the debate. We have higher level discussions here about such things because we hold the bar higher. Good on us.

That's a good point, and I presume it's why formal special interest groups don't use arguments like that (or at least not very often). You want to win people over, not make them defensive.

I don't accept it as something I should provide because people need it. I might ultimately accept having money taken from me and used to provide the same health care to all because it may make society better for me (through the mechanism of the economy from healthy workers). But not because of any moral high ground argument, because I don't accept that it's morally superior to take something from one person and give it to another because they need it (or "existentially require" it). That is, of course, simply my personal opinion. Your mileage may vary.

A significant difference being that it didn't necessarily cost me anything to deal with the HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray war (unless I chose to participate in it, which as it so happens I did). But certainly the point would seem to be valid.

That's a good observation, and I think it underscores part of the problem -- there are significant special interests in play against this issue. Some of the ones that are ostensibly "on the left" are interested in regulating and eliminating things that are detrimental to your health. Some of the ones that are ostensibly "on the right" are interested in eliminating things that they believe are detrimental to your moral health (just to grab a term of convenience). What typically seems to happen in this country is that an issue is successful either because one of the political parties adopts it as part of its agenda or because the majority of both political parties come to support it. So if you want to decriminalize MJ, that's what you'd want to focus on. Which, of course , is how a special interest group comes into being. I believe there are at least two significant MJ decriminalization lobbies located in Washington (MPP and NORML; there may be others I'm just not familiar with), and I believe both are located on or around K Street, which is an indication of their success at least in terms of becoming considered a "legitimate issue".

Of course the stories are much different if you dig any deeper, but the point is that no story is ever truly original, or more optimistically put, a story doesn't have to be entirely new to be interesting.

Actually I think the author went out of her way to make his talents greater than the other kids'. What made the Potter books compelling for me was clever plot development and interesting characters. But to each his own, of course. ------------------- On another note, some say that the Potter books are not very original, but then neither was Lord of the Rings. I did a little lecture bit with my Game Design students last night where I described a great epic story that takes place in a fantasy setting and is told in four great volumes. In the first, sort-of precursor to the main trilogy, we learn of a diminutive race of pastoral people who shun the life of men and cities. A member of this race finds himself caught up in a series of Great Events, involving a battle between men and other races, an encounter with a dragon, and many other exciting happenings. At the end of the first story, this person receives a great magic item -- a powerful ring with the ability to turn the wearer invisible! He returns home to his pastoral setting and continues his life. (At this point the students begin rolling their eyes, wondering why I would think that they've never heard this story....) I continue on to describe the main trilogy, talking about how it turns out that the ring, unknown to its current holders, is actually the source of a great, ancient power, and can give its wearer the ability to rule the entire world. At this point other characters are introduced, including a great human hunter who is actually a forgotten descendant of an ancient noble line, with a mighty sword that was destroyed in ancient times, but has since been reforged with the hope that he will become a great leader of men. We also learn of his girlfriend, who is a member of an ancient and immortal race that look just like humans, but have mystical powers that are never quite explained. As the story continues, great forces and alliances are formed as they learn of the return of the ancient Ring of power to the world, and attempts are made to capture it and/or prevent it from falling into the hands of the great evil enemy, which has also risen again. In the end a titanic battle ensues, and through a singular act of heroism the ring is cast into a magic fire that destroys it, thereby vanquishing the evil from the land. And at the end the mystical human-like race decides that it's time to depart the world of men and go... elsewhere. Here of course I ask the students what story I'm describing, and of course they all shout "Lord of the Rings!" and laugh. And then I get to have my fun and inform them that in fact it's the story of Der Ring des Niebelungen, an opera in four acts by Richard Wagner, based on the ancient mythological stories of the Norse and Germanic peoples. Of course the stories are much different if you dig any deeper, but the point is that no story is ever truly original, or more optimistically put, a story doesn't have to be entirely new to be interesting.

Well there are other reasons to restrict urban growth, but I agree with that example. I live next to a boundary (the Everglades) that has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting human-owned land.

Well in the US the regulatory approach is all this country has had since around the Great Depression and subsequent economic buildup of WW2. There was a great reform movement that called for increase product safety following authors like Upton Sinclair and a general impression that the industrial revolution had produced a situation in which men had become no more important than machines. The result was a great advent of product safety regulation and a bureaucracy to run it, often with mixed results. In my opinion the overall benefit is clear. The question of enforcement is certainly a good one -- we have a mixed history, for sure. In my opinion all these current calls for pure-market economics are really just calls for decreased regulation. I don't think there's a good case for that even in the management of the financial sector. Even admitting the flaws of CRA (a regulation said to have lead at least in part to the mortgage meltdown, depending on who you ask) doesn't prove that regulations are themselves the problem. Throwing out all regulation doesn't feel appropriate or even necessary. Just my opinion, of course. And I more or less apply the same reasoning up and down the line. The issue has become too politicized -- people accuse me of being a "flaming liberal" for having the above opinion; others accuse me of being a "partisan conservative" for even mentioning CRA or the benefits of removing incorrect regulations in general. IMO we need to take the politics out of regulatory determination.

Well these are college students, but I suppose some of them could be too young to buy beer. It occurred to me after the last post that perhaps they do use alcohol and I just haven't noticed. (lol) (Now y'all are gonna start wondering what kind of a lame school I teach at!)

Well there are certainly many stupid things that students can (and do) do. I've got one who lied about being registered for the class for the last two weeks just so she could sit with her boyfriend in the back row and distract HIM from paying attention during the lecture. I had fun putting that one down last night (what fun is it becoming middle-aged if you aren't destroying young love?). But they don't sneak out to the parking lot to drink beer, they sneak out to the parking lot to smoke weed. I assume there's a reason for that. If it's because it's a better high, then the argument that they'd just do some other substance would seem to be moot. If the argument is that they do it only because it's illegal, then what would they do if we made it legal? Something worse? I don't see a win there.

Forgive me, I remember that now -- too many threads, too poor a memory. I agree that oversight is not the same thing as a salary cap. Of course, that's the purpose of oversight -- to have the ability to set that salary cap. One can certainly envision the threat of a salary cap having sufficient impact at a bargaining table such that an actual cap becomes unnecessary, but it's reasonable to suggest that the power would be exercised if the appropriate circumstances arose (as outlined in your post above) -- that's the whole point, right? But certainly this is a very different situation from Barney Frank's punative-sounding threat about salary caps for all US corporations. It's an interesting distinction and really it's not all that much of an extrapolation from current powers. We already control the financial sector, and we've been talking about correctly regulating the industry to prevent future abuses. Though it might be a bit of a stretch to suggest that executive compensation is a "systemic risk". Compared with the kinds of sums that crashed the system it's pocket change. Like killing their corporate jets.

The story was reported in the New York Times on March 21st, as I mentioned in the opening post. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/us/politics/22regulate.html?_r=2&ref=business He wanted it (or at least said he did). But as waitforufo points out, he decided in the end not to ask for it. Probably a wise move.

Interesting use of the word "honest", in a budget that's 50% funded by debt. (sigh) I do get the point, though, and agree with putting that stuff in the budget. The question is whether Mrs. Pelosi and her colleagues will stick with the plan to remove these additional, short-term expenditures once the economy is repaired. That may become the most interesting budgetary battle in the history of this country.

Certainly. This is not a bad argument, IMO, because it focuses attention on consistency and accurate information. I don't know enough about the stuff myself. Maybe I should learn more. I do know that it's infernally stupid when some of my students sneak out at the break and stink up the parking lot, and then come back to the classroom giggling and making mincemeat out of the lab assignment. But there's certainly no reason why I can't take them to the cleaners at grading time -- that's one way of dealing with the motivation issue. My main interest is in whether or not usage would increase. I don't think we really know one way or another. I think the president is correct in leaving this one off the table for the moment, given how it's already groaning from the weight of what's on it. But I don't think that should be a permanent condition. People have a right to bring issues to the fore. One thing I'm curious about is what percentage of criminals in jail are there over MJ charges specifically, as opposed to other drug offenses.

Yah the right-wing blogosphere was aflame yesterday over the news that this was about to come up for a vote, and refreshing Barney Frank's comments about having it apply to all companies, but either the provision never made it into the bill or it was all smoke and mirrors to begin with, I'm still not clear which. I wouldn't put it past Barney Frank to throw it out there just to annoy the far right, but then I also wouldn't put it past him to mean it sincerely, so who knows. ------------- Edit: Wups, I just realized, this is the wrong thread, Bascule. I can't find the old discussion about Barney Frank and compensation caps for ALL companies -- it must have been buried inside another thread (I think it was). The story here (see OP) was that Obama wanted executive compensation caps for all financial services companies. He didn't get that either -- the final bill was only for companies receiving bailouts (just as you say).

You mean in terms of what approach will create more such people? It's a reasonable question. If we adopt Obama's plan then costs are fixed and that shouldn't happen anymore, but I guess that even then we'll surely have cracks people can fall through. Perhaps something that's similar to unemployment compensation might be useful here. In that program people who quit their jobs don't get squat, but people who are terminated for no fault of their own are entitled to a limited, temporary assistance. We could do something similar for health care -- not to be cold about it, but productive people should not be lost to GDP when they can be turned around and made productive again. That's what safety nets are all about. We already have COBRA, but it only lasts 18 months and dumps the whole cost on the employee (often many times what they were paying). It might be worth revisiting that issue, even if we do resolve the overall health care cost problem. (And thanks for you know what.)

rofl!

Well you're welcome, but I'm still frustrated with you about that "empty platitudes" comment. I don't think it was fair. I supported my argument with key points about the insurance industry and marketing-versus-research costs in the drug industry, and I followed up with what I felt was a reasonable concern. I felt run-over by your post, the way you threw that at me and then restated the question as if I didn't exist was very insulting. Bolded to show that I was in the correct ballpark. I'm not accusing you of desiring socialism, but this shows that my concern is on-subject and a reasonable point of discussion. That's great, iNow. We can start by not calling replies that express concern about socialism "empty platitudes". There's nothing "empty" about this argument: If we don't fix the system before enacting an entitlement then my concern is that the system will become almost impossible to repair. A perfect example of this is the way the entitlement of Medicare -- which we cannot change without a massive and incredibly unpopular intervention -- allows drug companies to charge the US taxpayer for their profit margin (R&D, marketing, and pure profit) and then give discounted drugs to Canada and other customers. And we've been stuck in that situation for years! Why? Because medicare is on the entitlement side of the budget -- practically untouchable, both by law and by public opinion. Make health care an entitlement without fixing the problem and the same thing would happen -- massive profits guaranteed by law, with no ability to change anything without a massive and incredibly unpopular intervention. That's my concern.

Pelosi and Reid are up to it again. Apparently they're going to get revenge on Republicans for the amendment proposal on gay marriage by proposing a constitutional amendment to repeal the 22nd amendment, which limits presidents to two terms in office. Very unfortunate. Story here.

Hey come on, you asked me for my honest opinion and I gave it to you. Are you saying I misunderstood the question? Because it sounds like from some of your posts above that you DO want to talk about universal coverage as an entitlement. But whatever the case may be, that certainly wasn't an attempt to denigrate your opinion. And I'm a little insulted by the bit about "empty platitudes". Yeesh. ------------------- No it's not, but iNow seems to wants to talk about guaranteeing universal coverage as a starting point. A guarantee. My opinion is that it's a mistake to guarantee coverage first. We need to fix costs first and then make the system as attractive as possible, and THEN see if we still have a problem. If we don't then we can move forward and this isn't an issue. We've already solved the problem of childhood coverage, so fixing the problem first makes sense, IMO. That's the point I was trying to make. But it's just my opinion.

No. I think the correct approach is exactly what Obama is doing -- overhaul and reform the system, but maintain private enrollment. Deal with the cost problem through regulation. Force the insurance companies to obey accounting and behavior standards that every other company in America is held to. Force drug companies to either spread the research cost, marketing cost, and PROFIT to ALL customers, or allow us to participate in the same deals that Canada et al get and STFU about their profit margin. Socialism is not an answer, it's a cop-out.