I never thought I would use the words "Bob Dole" and "statesman" in the same sentence, but Bob Dole recently gave an interview in which he asserted multiple times that "The United States takes better care of its veterans than any other country in the world." This illustrates the wisdom that elder statesman have; this wisdom is based on two things: first, they have a vast amount of experience and so have a better perspective on things than the rest of us; and second, they are out of politics and so can feel free to speak their mind, unemcumbered by the needs and demands of partisan politics.
This whole "issue" of the Va waiting lists is bogus on so many levels that one hardly knows where to start. First of all, no veteran is being denied care. Any veteran is free to go to any private health care provider, just as the rest of us do.
A recent caller to C-SPAN's "Washington Journal" made the point that a veteran is able to go a private hospital and still have the VA pay for it. He said that every veteran is given a pamphlet when he goes into the VA, explaining the procedure for this. The caller himself has had many surgeries, and never any problem with getting the VA to pay for them. Indeed, every caller to C-SPAN that I have heard has said that he's had excellent care at the VA, and has no complaints.
Certainly no reasonable person would deny that a veteran who has seen combat, and has health issues resulting from that combat, should be entitled to free, top-notch medical care. But the veterans whose "service" consists of sitting behind a desk for two years in this county is in a much different category. There need to be more sensible standards about who is entitled to free care.
A caller to "Washington Journal" provided some useful perspective. He is a plumbing contractor who does a lot of work in hospitals, both private and VA. he said that when a private hospital does something wrong, nobody hears anything about it. However, when a VA hospital does something wrong, it is splashed all over the front page the next day.
This is in line with what I discovered when working years ago for a government-funded anti-poverty agency. When I took exception to a critical article in the local newspaper and wrote to the reporter about it, I received a response saying that anything an agency does with taxpayer dollars is fair game.
Another problem is the need for any government agency to give "due process" to its employees. What this means is that, unlike in the private sector, it is very hard to get rid of an unsatisfactory employee. This is because of the Constitutional requirement that the government cannot deny anybody "life, liberty or property without due process of law". Since a job is considered to be a form of property right, we have the due process problem. Again, I ran into this working for a government agency, when an incompetent personnel director was fired, then went to court and got his job back, with back pay.
The best system is to get rid of all the layer upon layer of bureaucracy and red tape in the health care delivery system, and go to a single-payer system in which we all have the right to health care. When Dwight Eisenhower was contemplating running for president in 1951, a journalist asked him if he "believed in socialized medicine". Ike's response: "Well, I don't like that term, but I believe everyone in this country should be entitled to free health care." Ike's wisdom holds true today, even more so than in 1951.
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
Friday, May 16, 2014
"Presidential Leadership", edited by James Taranto and Leonard Leo
This book undertakes to rate the U.S. presidents, using a survey methodology thought to be superior to the usual technique, as used by C-SPAN in its surveys. C-SPAN surveys historians, giving each a list of ten qualities, and asks the responders to rate each president on each of these ten categories on a scale of one to ten. The figures are then added up to arrive at the final result for each president.
The C-SPAN methodology suffers from the fact that each of the ten categories are presumed to be equal in importance. This is a huge flaw. The editors of this book improve on this methodology by asking the responders simply to rate each president on a scale of one to five. Additionally, these editors, who represent two conservative organizations, the Wall Street Journal and the Federalist Society, seek to broaden the base of responders by choosing not only historians, but also political scientists and law professors. Also, an attempt is made to survey an equal number of respondents from the left and the right, correcting what the editors perceive as a liberal bias among historians generally.
The survey results are still hopelessly wrongheaded. But in addition to this basic problem, the essays on the presidents are each written by a different writer, some of whom agree with the survey results and some of whom do not. Consequently, there is no coherence to the book, no consistent standards used to evaluate the presidents.
There are so many internal inconsistencies that one hardly knows where to start. The essay on Andrew Johnson by University of Texas professor Jeffrey K. Tulis points out the folly of judging presidential success by how effective the president was in achieving his stated goals. Tulis states that if this standard is used, then Johnson was a "remarkably successful president". But Tulis believes that Johnson was in fact "an awful president", and evaluating Johnson's presidency "reminds us how cramped and inadequate is a notion of success confined to power and shorn from the ends for which power is deployed". In other words, the ends have to be legitimate and worthy.
How in the world, then, can John Adams be ranked 13th, and Lyndon Johnson be ranked 17th? Adams saddled the country with the odious Alien and Sedition Laws, which made criticizing the president a jailable offense. Indeed, when Adams left office, there were dozens of journalists languishing in prison for criticizing the government. What could be more unAmerican than that?
Similarly, the rank of LBJ in the top half is ludicrous. Every independent factfinder Jonson ever sent to Vietnam always came back with the same pessimistic report: it was an unwinnable war, and we had no business being involved in it. Yet, he continued on with his war, do only to his out-sized ego and his basic insecurity. LBJ should be ranked near the bottom, yet the ratings and the essay on his presidency support the top-half rating.
A basic principle of evaluating the presidents is that the evaluation should be based on their presidencies, and not their accomplishments outside their presidencies. Only the failure of the editors to observe this basic principle can explain how James Madison, William Howard Taft, and John Adams can all be ranked in the top half. All were mediocre presidents, though all had accomplishments during other parts of their lives which mus have entered into the thinking of those who offered opinions for this book.
Then we have the problem of blaming presidents for economic collapses that were caused by their predecessors. Thus, we have Martin van Buren (23rd) and Herbert Hoover (29th), both of whom were inexplicably rated lower than their predecessors: Andrew Jackson at 6th, and Calvin Coolidge at 25th.
The laissez-faire philosophy of the conservative/libertarian editors is shown in the essay on Bill Clinton, which contains this line: "the nation thrived mightily, as always when the White House does nothing". Yet, this principle is violated repeatedly when strong, activist presidents are routinely placed higher than they deserve. Andrew Jackson is the worst example of this. To place him 6th is a bad joke. Jackson destroyed the monetary system with his repeated vetoes of the bills presented to him by Congress, leading ultimately to a horrible depression which his successor had to deal with. When Andrew Johnson thwarted the will of Congress, the book claims that this justifies his presidency being rated a "failure"; but when Andrew Jackson does it, for some reason his administration is nevertheless labeled as "near great".
The essay on Jackson mentions only in passing Jackson's forced removal of Native Americans west to present-day Oklahoma. His "Trail of Tears" saw a considerably higher percentage of deaths than the infamous Bataan Death March during World War Two. The essay does not even mention at all Jackson's infamous response to the Supreme Court decision in Worcester v. Georgia, when he supposedly said "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" Whether Jackson actually said these exact words or not is irrelevant, as it clearly expressed his views that the law meant nothing to him when it came to the forced removal of Native Americans to land unwanted by White settlers. For editors supposedly dedicated to limited, constitutional government, it is odd indeed that Jackson's efforts to deliberately violate a decision of the Supreme Court pass without a mention in this book.
And finally, we have the problem that presidents who returned the country to normalcy following the turbulent and error-prone tenure of their predecessors are routinely under-rated. In this category we have James Monroe, Rutherford B. Hayes, Warren Harding, and Gerald Ford.
To understand how important the Monroe years of tranquility were, one must understand how horribly disruptive were the years of his predecessor, Madison. Madison took the country into a completely useless war, the War of 1812, a war which accomplished nothing, ended in a stalemate, and triggered a serious secession movement in the New England states. The people surveyed for this book seem to think that the "Era of Good Feelings" under Monroe happened by accident. To the contrary, Monroe made every effort to personally travel to every part of the country, and to appoint cabinet members from every part of the county. His foreign policy pronouncement, the Monroe Doctrine, represented a giant step forward in the U.S. taking a proactive approach to foreign affairs, in contrast to the reactive approach of Adams and Madison, and the doctrine still resonates to this day. To rank Monroe only 16th is to say that no president can be ranked higher than that unless he has had to face a huge crisis. I reject this narrow-minded thinking.
Similarly, Hayes represents a period of healing with the ending of reconstruction. Hayes also represents one of the most principled men to ever hold the highest office; he stated early on that he would only serve one term, because he didn't think a president should govern with an eye towards his re-election, and he kept his word on this.
Similarly, Harding represents a needed healing time after Wilson's ineffective presidency, and Ford represents a healing time after Nixon's nightmare of a presidency. These two, along with Monroe and Hayes, are all grossly underrated.
The book I would like to see is one that presents the criteria to be used right upfront, and then consistently follows through on rating presidents based on those state criteria. This book, by contrast, is all over the place.
The C-SPAN methodology suffers from the fact that each of the ten categories are presumed to be equal in importance. This is a huge flaw. The editors of this book improve on this methodology by asking the responders simply to rate each president on a scale of one to five. Additionally, these editors, who represent two conservative organizations, the Wall Street Journal and the Federalist Society, seek to broaden the base of responders by choosing not only historians, but also political scientists and law professors. Also, an attempt is made to survey an equal number of respondents from the left and the right, correcting what the editors perceive as a liberal bias among historians generally.
The survey results are still hopelessly wrongheaded. But in addition to this basic problem, the essays on the presidents are each written by a different writer, some of whom agree with the survey results and some of whom do not. Consequently, there is no coherence to the book, no consistent standards used to evaluate the presidents.
There are so many internal inconsistencies that one hardly knows where to start. The essay on Andrew Johnson by University of Texas professor Jeffrey K. Tulis points out the folly of judging presidential success by how effective the president was in achieving his stated goals. Tulis states that if this standard is used, then Johnson was a "remarkably successful president". But Tulis believes that Johnson was in fact "an awful president", and evaluating Johnson's presidency "reminds us how cramped and inadequate is a notion of success confined to power and shorn from the ends for which power is deployed". In other words, the ends have to be legitimate and worthy.
How in the world, then, can John Adams be ranked 13th, and Lyndon Johnson be ranked 17th? Adams saddled the country with the odious Alien and Sedition Laws, which made criticizing the president a jailable offense. Indeed, when Adams left office, there were dozens of journalists languishing in prison for criticizing the government. What could be more unAmerican than that?
Similarly, the rank of LBJ in the top half is ludicrous. Every independent factfinder Jonson ever sent to Vietnam always came back with the same pessimistic report: it was an unwinnable war, and we had no business being involved in it. Yet, he continued on with his war, do only to his out-sized ego and his basic insecurity. LBJ should be ranked near the bottom, yet the ratings and the essay on his presidency support the top-half rating.
A basic principle of evaluating the presidents is that the evaluation should be based on their presidencies, and not their accomplishments outside their presidencies. Only the failure of the editors to observe this basic principle can explain how James Madison, William Howard Taft, and John Adams can all be ranked in the top half. All were mediocre presidents, though all had accomplishments during other parts of their lives which mus have entered into the thinking of those who offered opinions for this book.
Then we have the problem of blaming presidents for economic collapses that were caused by their predecessors. Thus, we have Martin van Buren (23rd) and Herbert Hoover (29th), both of whom were inexplicably rated lower than their predecessors: Andrew Jackson at 6th, and Calvin Coolidge at 25th.
The laissez-faire philosophy of the conservative/libertarian editors is shown in the essay on Bill Clinton, which contains this line: "the nation thrived mightily, as always when the White House does nothing". Yet, this principle is violated repeatedly when strong, activist presidents are routinely placed higher than they deserve. Andrew Jackson is the worst example of this. To place him 6th is a bad joke. Jackson destroyed the monetary system with his repeated vetoes of the bills presented to him by Congress, leading ultimately to a horrible depression which his successor had to deal with. When Andrew Johnson thwarted the will of Congress, the book claims that this justifies his presidency being rated a "failure"; but when Andrew Jackson does it, for some reason his administration is nevertheless labeled as "near great".
The essay on Jackson mentions only in passing Jackson's forced removal of Native Americans west to present-day Oklahoma. His "Trail of Tears" saw a considerably higher percentage of deaths than the infamous Bataan Death March during World War Two. The essay does not even mention at all Jackson's infamous response to the Supreme Court decision in Worcester v. Georgia, when he supposedly said "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" Whether Jackson actually said these exact words or not is irrelevant, as it clearly expressed his views that the law meant nothing to him when it came to the forced removal of Native Americans to land unwanted by White settlers. For editors supposedly dedicated to limited, constitutional government, it is odd indeed that Jackson's efforts to deliberately violate a decision of the Supreme Court pass without a mention in this book.
And finally, we have the problem that presidents who returned the country to normalcy following the turbulent and error-prone tenure of their predecessors are routinely under-rated. In this category we have James Monroe, Rutherford B. Hayes, Warren Harding, and Gerald Ford.
To understand how important the Monroe years of tranquility were, one must understand how horribly disruptive were the years of his predecessor, Madison. Madison took the country into a completely useless war, the War of 1812, a war which accomplished nothing, ended in a stalemate, and triggered a serious secession movement in the New England states. The people surveyed for this book seem to think that the "Era of Good Feelings" under Monroe happened by accident. To the contrary, Monroe made every effort to personally travel to every part of the country, and to appoint cabinet members from every part of the county. His foreign policy pronouncement, the Monroe Doctrine, represented a giant step forward in the U.S. taking a proactive approach to foreign affairs, in contrast to the reactive approach of Adams and Madison, and the doctrine still resonates to this day. To rank Monroe only 16th is to say that no president can be ranked higher than that unless he has had to face a huge crisis. I reject this narrow-minded thinking.
Similarly, Hayes represents a period of healing with the ending of reconstruction. Hayes also represents one of the most principled men to ever hold the highest office; he stated early on that he would only serve one term, because he didn't think a president should govern with an eye towards his re-election, and he kept his word on this.
Similarly, Harding represents a needed healing time after Wilson's ineffective presidency, and Ford represents a healing time after Nixon's nightmare of a presidency. These two, along with Monroe and Hayes, are all grossly underrated.
The book I would like to see is one that presents the criteria to be used right upfront, and then consistently follows through on rating presidents based on those state criteria. This book, by contrast, is all over the place.
Friday, April 25, 2014
Should college athletes be paid?
This is the way the question is usually posed, but it is a particularly unhelpful way to pose the question. College athletes are already paid; the question is, should they be paid more?
The idea that a college can feed an athlete on scholarship a bagel, and that is OK because the NCAA considers it a "snack", but when you put cream cheese on the bagel, then it is not OK because that is considered a "meal", is ludicrous on the face of it. Many, many more examples can be given of the ridiculousness of NCAA regulations, but this makes the point quite nicely.
NCAA head Mark Emmert has gone on TV recently defending the ridiculous NCAA rules, and he is surely the most inept person I have ever seen in such a high leadership position. The NCAA and its member institutions have promulgated numerous frivolous arguments to dissuade its athletes and the authorities from determining that the athletes are, in fact, "employees", which they clearly are. One of the most outrageous allegations/threats is that if these employees choose to unionize, their scholarships will henceforth be treated as income, and they will be taxed on it. Whether the scholarship money is income or not will be determined by IRS law and regulations, and has absolutely nothing to do with whether these employees decide to unionize.
Coaches have talked about how their players have to purchase their own disability insurance, so that if they suffer a career-ending injury, they will be compensated. Coaches have talked about how their star players cannot take their girlfriends out for a movie or a pizza at night. Coaches have talked about how the parents of their players cannot afford to come watch their sons play; or, in the event of a family emergency, the players cannot afford to fly home.
All of these are problems that would be addressed if the players were allowed to unionize and have a say in their future. I support this effort, and I hope it succeeds. The NCAA has a ten billion dollar contract to televise March Madness, and a ten billion dollar contract to televise the football playoffs. To deny this is big business is to perpetrate a fraud on all fans and players.
The idea that a college can feed an athlete on scholarship a bagel, and that is OK because the NCAA considers it a "snack", but when you put cream cheese on the bagel, then it is not OK because that is considered a "meal", is ludicrous on the face of it. Many, many more examples can be given of the ridiculousness of NCAA regulations, but this makes the point quite nicely.
NCAA head Mark Emmert has gone on TV recently defending the ridiculous NCAA rules, and he is surely the most inept person I have ever seen in such a high leadership position. The NCAA and its member institutions have promulgated numerous frivolous arguments to dissuade its athletes and the authorities from determining that the athletes are, in fact, "employees", which they clearly are. One of the most outrageous allegations/threats is that if these employees choose to unionize, their scholarships will henceforth be treated as income, and they will be taxed on it. Whether the scholarship money is income or not will be determined by IRS law and regulations, and has absolutely nothing to do with whether these employees decide to unionize.
Coaches have talked about how their players have to purchase their own disability insurance, so that if they suffer a career-ending injury, they will be compensated. Coaches have talked about how their star players cannot take their girlfriends out for a movie or a pizza at night. Coaches have talked about how the parents of their players cannot afford to come watch their sons play; or, in the event of a family emergency, the players cannot afford to fly home.
All of these are problems that would be addressed if the players were allowed to unionize and have a say in their future. I support this effort, and I hope it succeeds. The NCAA has a ten billion dollar contract to televise March Madness, and a ten billion dollar contract to televise the football playoffs. To deny this is big business is to perpetrate a fraud on all fans and players.
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
Do women still get paid "far less than their male counterparts"?
This was a claim made by Mika Brzezinski recently on "Morning Joe", MSNBC's morning program of news commentary. The basis for the claim is that women, on average, are paid 77% as much as men are, on the average. Assuming this is true, it in no way support's Mika's ridiculous claim.
First of all, equal pay for equal work has been the law for a long time now, and seems to be widely accepted. Any employer who does what Mika alleges would be in severe hot water legally.
Mika is a competent journalist, but she has her head way up her you-know-what on this issue. Studies have shown that, even among couples who are committed to sharing housework equally, once the first child is born, the equality is out the window, as the female takes vastly more responsibility for the child than the male. Obviously, this means the female spends less of her time and energy on her career, compared to men.
Another stat which is pertinent is one I heard many years ago, and never refuted, which is that never-married men and never-married women get paid about equally. This supports the notion that the problem is not any workplace discrimination, but rather, different choices that men and women make as to their priorities vis a vis family vs. career.
Choices of careers between men and women have a large role here also. Women tend to pick lower-paying jobs for their careers. Relative to men, there are very few women computer engineers, for example. How many women brain surgeons and rocket scientists are there?
By using the word "counterparts", Mika implies that women are paid less for the same work as men. Nothing could be further removed from the truth.
First of all, equal pay for equal work has been the law for a long time now, and seems to be widely accepted. Any employer who does what Mika alleges would be in severe hot water legally.
Mika is a competent journalist, but she has her head way up her you-know-what on this issue. Studies have shown that, even among couples who are committed to sharing housework equally, once the first child is born, the equality is out the window, as the female takes vastly more responsibility for the child than the male. Obviously, this means the female spends less of her time and energy on her career, compared to men.
Another stat which is pertinent is one I heard many years ago, and never refuted, which is that never-married men and never-married women get paid about equally. This supports the notion that the problem is not any workplace discrimination, but rather, different choices that men and women make as to their priorities vis a vis family vs. career.
Choices of careers between men and women have a large role here also. Women tend to pick lower-paying jobs for their careers. Relative to men, there are very few women computer engineers, for example. How many women brain surgeons and rocket scientists are there?
By using the word "counterparts", Mika implies that women are paid less for the same work as men. Nothing could be further removed from the truth.
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
Why I don't believe in insurance
Like people who play the lottery, people who buy insurance are basically innumerate (i.e., mathematically illiterate). In both cases, what you are doing is paying a middle man who skims a portion of the proceeds off the top, and then distributes the remainder to the participants. In the case of the lottery, the amount skimmed off is 50% or more; with insurance companies it is somewhat less but the principle is the same.
A further problem with insurance is that you are placing a bet that something bad is going to happen to you. In the case of life insurance, you are betting that you're going to die; if you live, you've lost the best. With disability insurance, you are betting you are going to become disabled; if you don't, you lose the bet. With health insurance, you are betting you are going to get sick or injured; if you don't, you lose.
What this amounts to is that you are subsidizing those folks who engage in risky behavior, whether it be smoking, not wearing your seatbelts, or whatever. If you have the good sense to make a reasonable effort to take care of yourself, you are making a really losing bet, over and beyond what the normal person makes when he/she buys insurance.
The obsession with insurance which has developed since World War 2 represents the decline in community during this era. People who are part of a community do not need insurance, because they know that the community will step in to take up the slack. The essence of community is a group of people who are committed to the idea of bearing each other's burdens; hence, no need for insurance.
A recent book about the experience of the Hutterites in World War One, called "Pacifists in Chains: The Persecution of Hutterites in the Great War", describes an odd consequence of the sense of community existing among the Hutterites. The book describes the experiences of four Hutterite men who were conscripted into the military during WW1. As husbands and fathers, they could have easily avoided conscription by simply checking the box that they were the "sole support" of their families. But, with scrupulous honesty, they failed to check this box, because they knew that the community would take care of their families in their absence.
A particularly outrageous example of how insurance companies spend the money they skim off the top from our premiums is seen in the exorbitant amounts that car insurance companies are paying for advertising in recent years. The TV airwaves are saturated with this advertising, which is especially inexplicable in light of the fact that the requirements for a basic car insurance policy are mandated by state law in every state. Every day we see these ads: Progressive (Flo and her "name your price tool"), Geico ("fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance"), State Farm ("like a good neighbor, State Farm is there"), Allstate (you're in good hands with Allstate), Farmer's ("we are Farmer's"), Safeco ("some people want more out of life"), The General ("Go to The General and save some time"), (esurance (poking fun at Geico's "fifteen minutes" jingle by saying it only takes seven and a half minutes with esurance), and, most bizarrely, USAA ("Once it's earned, USAA auto insurance is often handed down from generation to generation").
The purpose of this post is not political, but I can't help observing that Obamacare is a pathetic attempt at reform, relying as it does on the private insurance system. True reform will not come in the U.S. until Congress decides to join the rest of the developed world in providing health care to all.
The absurd situations which arise when the private insurance system and private employers are involved is represented by the Hobby Lobby case, which was recently argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. Hobby Lobby argued that its religious liberties were being violated by being forced to cover contraception in the health insurance plans provided to its employees. This position is laughable on a number of grounds.
But consider the larger question, presented by the thrust of this post. Why should health insurance plans cover contraception? Insurance, if it has any legitimate role at all, should be used to protect us against catastrophic events. Just as we don't expect our car insurance to pay for routine oil changes, neither should we expect our health insurance to pay for routine body maintenance. When I learned that the contraceptive coverage in question was available for as low as $9 a month, this made the Obama Administration's position seem awfully weak on the coverage issue.
A further problem with insurance is that you are placing a bet that something bad is going to happen to you. In the case of life insurance, you are betting that you're going to die; if you live, you've lost the best. With disability insurance, you are betting you are going to become disabled; if you don't, you lose the bet. With health insurance, you are betting you are going to get sick or injured; if you don't, you lose.
What this amounts to is that you are subsidizing those folks who engage in risky behavior, whether it be smoking, not wearing your seatbelts, or whatever. If you have the good sense to make a reasonable effort to take care of yourself, you are making a really losing bet, over and beyond what the normal person makes when he/she buys insurance.
The obsession with insurance which has developed since World War 2 represents the decline in community during this era. People who are part of a community do not need insurance, because they know that the community will step in to take up the slack. The essence of community is a group of people who are committed to the idea of bearing each other's burdens; hence, no need for insurance.
A recent book about the experience of the Hutterites in World War One, called "Pacifists in Chains: The Persecution of Hutterites in the Great War", describes an odd consequence of the sense of community existing among the Hutterites. The book describes the experiences of four Hutterite men who were conscripted into the military during WW1. As husbands and fathers, they could have easily avoided conscription by simply checking the box that they were the "sole support" of their families. But, with scrupulous honesty, they failed to check this box, because they knew that the community would take care of their families in their absence.
A particularly outrageous example of how insurance companies spend the money they skim off the top from our premiums is seen in the exorbitant amounts that car insurance companies are paying for advertising in recent years. The TV airwaves are saturated with this advertising, which is especially inexplicable in light of the fact that the requirements for a basic car insurance policy are mandated by state law in every state. Every day we see these ads: Progressive (Flo and her "name your price tool"), Geico ("fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance"), State Farm ("like a good neighbor, State Farm is there"), Allstate (you're in good hands with Allstate), Farmer's ("we are Farmer's"), Safeco ("some people want more out of life"), The General ("Go to The General and save some time"), (esurance (poking fun at Geico's "fifteen minutes" jingle by saying it only takes seven and a half minutes with esurance), and, most bizarrely, USAA ("Once it's earned, USAA auto insurance is often handed down from generation to generation").
The purpose of this post is not political, but I can't help observing that Obamacare is a pathetic attempt at reform, relying as it does on the private insurance system. True reform will not come in the U.S. until Congress decides to join the rest of the developed world in providing health care to all.
The absurd situations which arise when the private insurance system and private employers are involved is represented by the Hobby Lobby case, which was recently argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. Hobby Lobby argued that its religious liberties were being violated by being forced to cover contraception in the health insurance plans provided to its employees. This position is laughable on a number of grounds.
But consider the larger question, presented by the thrust of this post. Why should health insurance plans cover contraception? Insurance, if it has any legitimate role at all, should be used to protect us against catastrophic events. Just as we don't expect our car insurance to pay for routine oil changes, neither should we expect our health insurance to pay for routine body maintenance. When I learned that the contraceptive coverage in question was available for as low as $9 a month, this made the Obama Administration's position seem awfully weak on the coverage issue.
Saturday, March 29, 2014
Review of "The Nine", by Jeffrey Toobin
The author is one of the most respected commentators on the Supreme Court, and he has written an extremely readable and informative book.
Toobin undertakes to discuss four eras in the Supreme Court since 1980. First is the one initiated by the Reagan years; then there is the disastrous Bush v. Gore case in 2000, which resulted in the Court losing much of its prestige due to its blatantly political decision. Third is the four-year period after Bush vs. Gore, and finally the three years after that, when George W. Bush got to appoint two new justices.
Toobin discusses individual cases, but only as a way of illustrating the trends occurring in each of the four eras he discusses. Similarly, he discusses the personalities of the individual justices, and the nomination and confirmation process for justices during this time period; but all this is for the purpose of illuminating how the court works and trying to explain the reasons for the trends he sees in the evolution of the court over the years. All the while the prose flows along smoothly, and Toobin never gets lost in the weeds.
It is clear to me that Toobin has a lot of admiration for the centrist justices, like O/Connor, Breyer, and Kennedy, and he praises the way these justices work hard at finding a sensible middle ground on which to decide cases. In a case involving the display of religious figures on public grounds, Justice Breyer came up with a middle-of-the-road decision, about which Toobin states: "As a political compromise, if not constitutional jurisprudence, it made total sense."
One comes away from the accounts of many cases like this with the feeling that Toobin feels the Supreme Court is more of a political institution than a legal institution. In other words, reaching a common sense conclusion is more important than coming up with sound legal reasoning to support that conclusion. And in many cases the Court's reasoning is indeed tortured and even incomprehensible. Yet, the Court somehow retains our respect, even though at times it has not been worthy of it.
Toobin undertakes to discuss four eras in the Supreme Court since 1980. First is the one initiated by the Reagan years; then there is the disastrous Bush v. Gore case in 2000, which resulted in the Court losing much of its prestige due to its blatantly political decision. Third is the four-year period after Bush vs. Gore, and finally the three years after that, when George W. Bush got to appoint two new justices.
Toobin discusses individual cases, but only as a way of illustrating the trends occurring in each of the four eras he discusses. Similarly, he discusses the personalities of the individual justices, and the nomination and confirmation process for justices during this time period; but all this is for the purpose of illuminating how the court works and trying to explain the reasons for the trends he sees in the evolution of the court over the years. All the while the prose flows along smoothly, and Toobin never gets lost in the weeds.
It is clear to me that Toobin has a lot of admiration for the centrist justices, like O/Connor, Breyer, and Kennedy, and he praises the way these justices work hard at finding a sensible middle ground on which to decide cases. In a case involving the display of religious figures on public grounds, Justice Breyer came up with a middle-of-the-road decision, about which Toobin states: "As a political compromise, if not constitutional jurisprudence, it made total sense."
One comes away from the accounts of many cases like this with the feeling that Toobin feels the Supreme Court is more of a political institution than a legal institution. In other words, reaching a common sense conclusion is more important than coming up with sound legal reasoning to support that conclusion. And in many cases the Court's reasoning is indeed tortured and even incomprehensible. Yet, the Court somehow retains our respect, even though at times it has not been worthy of it.
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
MLB Predictions for 2014
Here we go for the upcoming 2014 season.
AL East: Red Sox, Rays, Yankees, Blue Jays, Orioles
Yankees will suffer through the season-long distraction of Jeter's farewell tour. Also a problem is C.C. Sabathia's missing fastball.
NL East: Braves, Nationals, Phillies, Mets, Marlins
AL Central: Tigers, Indians, Royals, White Sox, Twins
Usually a team that has a breakout season like the Indians did last year will slip back the next year. But Nick Swisher came to camp with T-shirt's for everyone saying "Unfinished Business", and under the steady leadership of Terry Francona the Tribe should be fine this year. Tigers might stumble if one of their ace starters goes down.
NL Central: Cardinals, Reds, Pirates, Brewers, Cubs
I've learned never to bet against the Cardinals, who have the best organization and the best fans in the country. Reds should be solid again.
AL West: Angels, Rangers, A's, Mariners, Astros
Angels should finally gel under the steady leadership of Mike Sciosca. I don't like the Rangers' trade of Kinsler for Fielder, and neither do I think much of their manager, so I'm picking them second although they should compete.
NL West: Dodgers, D-Backs, Giants, Rockies, Padres
Dodgers should be ready for a good-sized run at the top with all their high-priced talent. I like Kirk Gibson, so I'm putting D-Backs second.
AL East: Red Sox, Rays, Yankees, Blue Jays, Orioles
Yankees will suffer through the season-long distraction of Jeter's farewell tour. Also a problem is C.C. Sabathia's missing fastball.
NL East: Braves, Nationals, Phillies, Mets, Marlins
AL Central: Tigers, Indians, Royals, White Sox, Twins
Usually a team that has a breakout season like the Indians did last year will slip back the next year. But Nick Swisher came to camp with T-shirt's for everyone saying "Unfinished Business", and under the steady leadership of Terry Francona the Tribe should be fine this year. Tigers might stumble if one of their ace starters goes down.
NL Central: Cardinals, Reds, Pirates, Brewers, Cubs
I've learned never to bet against the Cardinals, who have the best organization and the best fans in the country. Reds should be solid again.
AL West: Angels, Rangers, A's, Mariners, Astros
Angels should finally gel under the steady leadership of Mike Sciosca. I don't like the Rangers' trade of Kinsler for Fielder, and neither do I think much of their manager, so I'm picking them second although they should compete.
NL West: Dodgers, D-Backs, Giants, Rockies, Padres
Dodgers should be ready for a good-sized run at the top with all their high-priced talent. I like Kirk Gibson, so I'm putting D-Backs second.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
