Slippery-Slope Logic vs. Health Care Law – Economic View – NYTimes.com

Slippery-Slope Logic vs. Health Care Law – Economic View – NYTimes.com:

There is a DirecTV ad that humorously illustrates the basic form of the slippery-slope argument. A foreboding announcer intones a list of syllogisms that are enacted on screen: “When your cable company puts you on hold, you get angry. When you get angry, you go blow off steam. When you go blow off steam, accidents happen.” Later, we reach the finale: “You wake up in a roadside ditch. Don’t wake up in a roadside ditch.”

Although this ad is intended to be funny, arguments that make no more sense can and do affect public policy. The idea is that while Policy X may be acceptable, it will inevitably lead to the terrible Outcome Y, so it is vital that we prevent Policy X from ever being enacted. The problem is that such arguments are often made without any evidence that doing X makes Y more likely, much less inevitable. What percentage of people who are left on hold on the telephone end up in a roadside ditch?

The anecdotal track record of people making slippery-slope predictions in the political domain is replete with bad forecasts. An opponent of women’s suffrage once predicted that giving women the right to vote would create a “race of masculine women and effeminate men and the mating of these would result in the procreation of a race of degenerates.” Another opponent, noting that women represent more than half the population, predicted that allowing women to vote would mean that all our political leaders would soon be women. For the record, women now hold 17 percent of the seats in Congress.

– Sent using Google Toolbar

Medical Progress Today: A Two-Year Look Back at PPACA – Why it’s Dangerous to Our Health

A Two-Year Look Back at PPACA – Why it’s Dangerous to Our Health
 So bad it’s good! This amazing piece, apparently from the Department of  Obtusity at the Manhattan Institute, takes a stab at criticizing PPACA. Big fail. Trying to finish up my semester here, so I will try to get back to this soon and deconstruct it, but I needed to leave a bookmark to remind me to do it. Enjoy.

How Dr. Emanuel and others think it is the responsibility of the taxpayer to pay for industry errors is beyond comprehension. If this was a pharmaceutical error, or medical device error, my guess is that the CEO of the offending companies would be hauled before Congress and affected families and patients would be called to testify against them – just like Congress did with Toyota.

Aha! Maybe that’s it. Maybe the issue is that these hospitals have a designation of “not-for-profit.” So in some people’s distorted view of the world, maybe they can do no wrong, and for-profit business enterprises can do no right. If this line of thinking is out there, then no amount of regulation will make us safe.

– Sent using Google Toolbar

Guest column: End is near for independent oncology, cardiology practices | Green Bay Press Gazette | greenbaypressgazette.com

Guest column: End is near for independent oncology, cardiology practices | Green Bay Press Gazette | greenbaypressgazette.com:

Cardiologists and oncologists now struggle to generate enough medical revenue to cover their costs to run the practice and pay physician salaries. “Pay the physicians less,” you say? Well, the problem is that the shortage of physicians is so severe that the price to bring a cardiologist or oncologist in is set at a market rate. If you underpay your own physicians, they leave to go to someone who will pay them the market rate; then you have no one to treat your patients.

It is estimated that by the end of 2012, 80 percent of all cardiologists will be employed by or leased to hospitals. Yes, it’s the end of the small independent cardiology and oncology practice and it’s happening right before our eyes.

– Sent using Google Toolbar

Are Conservatives More Fearful Than Liberals? | Tea Party and the Right | AlterNet

Are Conservatives More Fearful Than Liberals? | Tea Party and the Right | AlterNet:

Their political advisers must understand a psychological phenomenon that researchers have been studying for some time now: conservatives appear to be motivated by fear in a way that liberals are not. An expanding body of research suggests that Republicans and Democrats differ on some fundamental level in how they respond to positive and negative stimuli. A new study, published in the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, adds even more evidence to the theory that these two groups quite literally see the world differently.

Researchers at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln showed people a series of photos — some endearing, some disgusting — and then measured their physiological and cognitive reactions. Conservatives, in keeping with past literature, reacted more strongly to the negative images, and liberals strongly to the positive ones.

– Sent using Google Toolbar

Is the White Working Class Coming Apart?—David Frum – The Daily Beast

Is the White Working Class Coming Apart?—David Frum – The Daily Beast: :

A piece by my favorite conservative, David Frum, taking apart a book by Charles Murray

1) It’s historically wrong to describe the “founders’ conception of limited government” as if there existed some group called “the founders” who broadly agreed a vision of government that more or less corresponded to contemporary libertarianism.

2) As a matter of fact, if you announce that there can exist no possible information that might change your mind about abortion, the death penalty, marijuana, same-sex marriage, and the inheritance tax, then yes you are an unreasonable person—or anyway, an unreasoning one. I’ve changed my mind about same-sex marriage as experience has dispelled my fears of the harms from same-sex marriage. If somebody could prove to me that marijuana was harmless or that legalization would not lead to an increase in marijuana use, I’d change my mind about marijuana legalization. And so on through the list.

3) But here’s the most important point of all. I tramped through a lot of the same research that Charles Murray presents here when I wrote my history of the 1970s, How We Got Here.

As I looked backward and forward in time, however, I had to face this awkward fact: America became more culturally stable between 1910 and 1960 as it became less economically and socially libertarian. As it became more economically and socially libertarian after 1970, America became culturally less stable:

“The greatest generation was also the statist generation. Like them or loathe them, the middle decades of the twentieth century were an entirely anomalous period in American history. Never had the state been so strong, never had people submitted as uncomplainingly, never had the country been more economically equal, never had it been more ethnically homogeneous, seldom was its political consensus more overpowering.”

– Sent using Google Toolbar

Why Public Employees Are The New Welfare Queens | The New Republic

Why Public Employees Are The New Welfare Queens | The New Republic:

But ask yourself the same question you should have been asking then: To what extent is the problem that the retirement benefits for unionized public sector workers have become too generous? And to what extent is the problem that retirement benefits for everybody else have become too stingy?

I would suggest it’s more the latter than the former. The promise of stable retirement–one not overly dependent on the ups and downs of the stock market–used to be part of the social contract. If you got an education and worked a steady job, then you got to live out the rest of your life comfortably. You might not be rich, but you wouldn’t be poor, either.

Unions, whatever their flaws, have delivered on that for their members. (In theory, retirement was supposed to rest on a “three-legged stool” of Social Security, pensions, and private benefits.) But unions have not been able to secure similar benefits for everybody else. That’s why the gap exists, although perhaps not for long.

– Sent using Google Toolbar

Editor of journal critical of welfare still has DPW job – Philly.com

Editor of journal critical of welfare still has DPW job – Philly.com:

INQUIRER HARRISBURG BUREAU HARRISBURG – A controversial adviser to Welfare Secretary Gary Alexander is still working for the state and will do so for an indefinite period, despite last week’s announcement that he had resigned.

Last week, officials said Robert W. Patterson, a special assistant to Alexander, had quit his $104,470 position as The Inquirer was preparing to publish a story about his outside role as editor of a conservative, faith-based journal.

In announcing Patterson’s exit, the Corbett administration distanced itself from views expressed in the journal, which has criticized key welfare programs administered by the Department of Public Welfare and offered opinions that women should be stay-at-home mothers and opposing birth control – as well as musings on how condom use could rob women of reported mood-enhancing benefits of chemicals in semen.

If you haven’t read Thomas Frank’s “The Wrecking Crew,” this could be straight out of it. Hire someone who detests a government agency and especially its constituency, and put them in positions of power within that organization to make it weak and ineffectual, then decry it for being weak and ineffectual.

– Sent using Google Toolbar

NHS or US healthcare? | Poll | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

NHS or US healthcare? | Poll | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk:

Which system would you rather be treated under?

89.9% —- The NHS, every time

10.1% —- I’d prefer to avoid the waiting lists and go stateside

 The website TownHall did a piece on a UK-NHS “horror story” and so I comment bombed them with posts on US anecdotes, international health care, and so on. It is amazing what a bubble these people live in. Read the comments and be prepared to bemoan the US educational system and our media environment. All of their prejudices are clearly pulled right out of Fox, IBD, WSJ, and the rest. Heaven forbid actual research.

I also found this poll from a few years ago that I thought was useful.

– Sent using Google Toolbar

Koch Brothers funded study:: “ObamaCare Health Insurance Exchanges Get a Grade of ‘F’ “

» “Independent” Study: ObamaCare Health Insurance Exchanges Get a Grade of ‘F’ – :

The independent Mercatus Center at George Mason University has given a grade of “F” to the ObamaCare Health Insurance Exchanges regulation. The center studies the anticipated results and economic effects of proposed regulations. In other words, their researchers evaluate whether regulations are likely to accomplish what their supporters say they will.

I guess we shouldn’t be surprised at what BS will be passed off as legitimate work, given enough money swirling around, but “independent?!?!” In this case, the “Mercatus Center” is a subsidiary of the Koch brothers war on rational discourse. But apparently they are, per the Wall Street Journal, “the most important think tank you’ve never heard of.”

I did review the document, and it has all the intellectual rigor of a teacher who really hates you grading your term paper.

– Sent using Google Toolbar

Doubt is Their Product

Doubt is Their Product:

“Doubt is our product,” a cigarette executive once observed, “since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.”

In this eye-opening exposé, David Michaels reveals how the tobacco industry’s duplicitous tactics spawned a multimillion dollar industry that is dismantling public health safeguards. Product defense consultants, he argues, have increasingly skewed the scientific literature, manufactured and magnified scientific uncertainty, and influenced policy decisions to the advantage of polluters and the manufacturers of dangerous products. To keep the public confused about the hazards posed by global warming, second-hand smoke, asbestos, lead, plastics, and many other toxic materials, industry executives have hired unscrupulous scientists and lobbyists to dispute scientific evidence about health risks. In doing so, they have not only delayed action on specific hazards, but they have constructed barriers to make it harder for lawmakers, government agencies, and courts to respond to future threats.

Just bookmarking this for future reference…

– Sent using Google Toolbar