The last few days I have been dealing with a slew of problems with USPS regarding getting my mail forwarded to my new address. Typically this is a fairly straight-forward service that mailing services supply, but with the run-around that USPS has been giving me you’d think I was applying for a mortgage. Ironically, USPS is one of the easier government offices to deal with. Imagine for a moment how much more difficult of a time I would be having if I was dealing with the Department of Motor Vehicles (which, by the way, is on the agenda for next week).The point is do we really want to hand over the keys to health care to the same people who administer these organizations?
Probably the best adjective we can apply to government run programs is “slow.” This isn’t as big of a deal with vehicle registration and mail service as delays in service typically aren’t life threatening, and in cases where they are you have options like United Postal Service and MVD Express to pick up the government’s slack. Health care is quite different, however, as it is frequently a matter of life or death. The new health care bill seeks not only to displace private insurance as the primary provider of health care insurance but to outlaw new enrollment in private health insurance. What will happen once the government bankrupts private insurance through unfair competition and we have no alternative care for emergencies? Will we end up like Britain or Canada with thousands of citizens waiting months for procedures that are readily available in our current system? I do not know, nor do I want to find out.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Thursday, June 18, 2009
The Myth of Silver Bullet Solutions
Have you ever noticed that fixing one thing frequently breaks another? Take medicine for example: It is common for the side effects of a medication to be worse than the ailment the medicine is used to treat. The patient then has to take several other pills to deal with the side effects of the first drug, each of which has its own set of side effects.
It is much the same with political “solutions”; only we are not told up front what the side effects will be so we can decide if we are willing to accept them. Instead, politicians herald a solution as a magic bullet that solves the problem without creating new ones. If common sense does not defeat this notion, empirical evidence certainly will.
Take for instance the popular myth that regulation is the solution to the housing crisis. While some regulation is arguably necessary, regulation almost always has unintended effects. Rent control laws are a strong example of this. While they are designed to keep housing affordable they almost always have the unintended consequence of driving up the costs of other housing in the area and have led to housing shortages in cities around the world. In short, when evaluating a new policy we must not only consider what it will fix, but also what it will break.
It is much the same with political “solutions”; only we are not told up front what the side effects will be so we can decide if we are willing to accept them. Instead, politicians herald a solution as a magic bullet that solves the problem without creating new ones. If common sense does not defeat this notion, empirical evidence certainly will.
Take for instance the popular myth that regulation is the solution to the housing crisis. While some regulation is arguably necessary, regulation almost always has unintended effects. Rent control laws are a strong example of this. While they are designed to keep housing affordable they almost always have the unintended consequence of driving up the costs of other housing in the area and have led to housing shortages in cities around the world. In short, when evaluating a new policy we must not only consider what it will fix, but also what it will break.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
What our Extra Tax Dollars Will Buy
As the Obama administration moves forward with its health care reformation plan it is imperative that we take the time to sit down and take a good look at exactly how the proposed plan will change the way we receive our care. Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute has published a concise piece listing some of the more controversial elements of the new bill. He argues that significant tax increases across the board will be needed to finance the proposed overhaul. I have listened to numerous people say they have no problem paying more in taxes if it means they receive health care in return, but we need to take a deeper look at just what these tax dollars will buy us.
Several months ago I had a lengthy chat with a practicing doctor about the problems in our medical system. In the discussion he eloquently summed up the central issue of the US medical system by saying that “Americans want three things from health care: they want it good, they want it cheap, and they want it now and in the end it is not possible to have all three at the same time”. Currently in America we tend to have really good health care that is administered in a relatively fast amount time when compared to other countries, but we have to pay a large amount of money to get it. Countries such as England that have government ran health care tend to have moderately good health care for much lower prices, but they have to wait much longer than Americans to receive care. Take these two cases from England as examples of some of the wait times that are experienced in such systems. Nor are such examples unique to England. All countries with large, government ran health care systems have much longer average wait times to get into a doctor’s office and much longer average wait times in a waiting room to see the doctor than in the US. In many cases the average wait time is 3 or more times longer than here at home. On top of this even advocates of a system like England's have admitted that quality of care offered in such systems is typically mediocre when compared to the system we currently have.
So as Obama pushes this policy forward we need to ask ourselves if we prefer our health care cheap, mediocre, and slow, or good, fast, and expensive.
Several months ago I had a lengthy chat with a practicing doctor about the problems in our medical system. In the discussion he eloquently summed up the central issue of the US medical system by saying that “Americans want three things from health care: they want it good, they want it cheap, and they want it now and in the end it is not possible to have all three at the same time”. Currently in America we tend to have really good health care that is administered in a relatively fast amount time when compared to other countries, but we have to pay a large amount of money to get it. Countries such as England that have government ran health care tend to have moderately good health care for much lower prices, but they have to wait much longer than Americans to receive care. Take these two cases from England as examples of some of the wait times that are experienced in such systems. Nor are such examples unique to England. All countries with large, government ran health care systems have much longer average wait times to get into a doctor’s office and much longer average wait times in a waiting room to see the doctor than in the US. In many cases the average wait time is 3 or more times longer than here at home. On top of this even advocates of a system like England's have admitted that quality of care offered in such systems is typically mediocre when compared to the system we currently have.
So as Obama pushes this policy forward we need to ask ourselves if we prefer our health care cheap, mediocre, and slow, or good, fast, and expensive.
Slogans In Lieu of Facts
It is a well documented fact that humans rally behind salient agenda items with well-crafted slogans to unite them. Darfur is a great example of this phenomenon. While the problems of Darfur have been going on for decades, it wasn’t until several years ago that it finally became a common topic of discussion in America. Around the same time you see slogans such as “save Darfur now” or “Stop genocide”. While this case demonstrates their value as glue to keep large and diverse communities together on an important issue, during election time this benefit is distorted.
During election season discussion of the actual agenda item(s) moves to the back burner while slogans because the central focus. In this case the slogan itself can become so prominent that its meaning is lost in the crowd. Take for instance Obama’s slogan “Change we can believe in”. By the time we were into the general election the original meaning of this slogan had fallen to the way side in favor becoming a rallying call for Obama’s supporters, many of whom had no idea what kind of change they were supporting. This is unfortunate because in this situation the issues that affect us do not get discussed as more than soundbytes or bullet-points.
Contrast this to the famous debates between Lincoln and Douglas prior to the civil war. In these town hall style debates candidates would spend well over an hour making proof-laden arguments in support of their platform and Americans would sit around for the whole thing. Though this would be unrealistic to expect in our fast paced information society, we have clearly gone to the opposite extreme where we spend far too little time discussing politics and evaluating our leaders. In the words of Thomas Jefferson: “Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty”.
During election season discussion of the actual agenda item(s) moves to the back burner while slogans because the central focus. In this case the slogan itself can become so prominent that its meaning is lost in the crowd. Take for instance Obama’s slogan “Change we can believe in”. By the time we were into the general election the original meaning of this slogan had fallen to the way side in favor becoming a rallying call for Obama’s supporters, many of whom had no idea what kind of change they were supporting. This is unfortunate because in this situation the issues that affect us do not get discussed as more than soundbytes or bullet-points.
Contrast this to the famous debates between Lincoln and Douglas prior to the civil war. In these town hall style debates candidates would spend well over an hour making proof-laden arguments in support of their platform and Americans would sit around for the whole thing. Though this would be unrealistic to expect in our fast paced information society, we have clearly gone to the opposite extreme where we spend far too little time discussing politics and evaluating our leaders. In the words of Thomas Jefferson: “Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty”.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Dodging Issues Rather than Dealing with them
Yesterday I watched an interview with Carolyn Maloney, a democrat representative from New York, about her position on universal health care. At one point in the segment she was asked point-blank if she supports insuring illegal immigrants. For whatever reason she chose to ignore the question and continue with her talking points to which the interviewer responded by asking her the same question… four more times!
The point here has nothing to do with universal health care, illegal immigration, or the fact that it happened to be a democrat this time around. The issue here is that she refused to answer an important question about the way she will vote on an issue. Worse than this is the fact that this is NOT a rare occurrence. In fact, not only is it a common phenomenon, it has become an accepted norm in both major parties across the entire spectrum of issues.
Rarely does anyone do as this interviewer and continue to ask the same question and even rarer is it that the politician gets directly called out for intentionally avoiding the question. We have gotten so used to not having our real questions answered that we no longer demand real answers from our leaders, and until we demand them we will not get them.
The point here has nothing to do with universal health care, illegal immigration, or the fact that it happened to be a democrat this time around. The issue here is that she refused to answer an important question about the way she will vote on an issue. Worse than this is the fact that this is NOT a rare occurrence. In fact, not only is it a common phenomenon, it has become an accepted norm in both major parties across the entire spectrum of issues.
Rarely does anyone do as this interviewer and continue to ask the same question and even rarer is it that the politician gets directly called out for intentionally avoiding the question. We have gotten so used to not having our real questions answered that we no longer demand real answers from our leaders, and until we demand them we will not get them.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
A Lesson in Rhetoric
Smooth words pave the way for big lies. Whenever a policy maker is about to give the public a pill that is hard to swallow, he will typically soften the blow with encouraging rhetoric. Politicians will also use this technique during debates to distract listeners from the actual message.
These tactics are remarkably effective at disarming us due to the way the words tend to resonate with core values that we typically hold. Take for example the following positive resonators: “fair” “free” “equal” “regulation”. These words reverberate with “good feelings”. Unfortunately politicians rarely hammer out the definitions they use for these words when addressing the public, leaving us with the responsibility of discerning their intent.
Aside from the obvious path of conducting your own research there is a valuable measuring stick that can be used to evaluate politicians on the fly. While you listen to what they are saying look for trigger words that tend to illicit a positive or negative emotional response when you hear them. Once you have identified one, listen carefully to the next thing the persuader says. Chances are this statement is the one that actually contains some content. Though this technique will not always work, it does provide one more tool to protect yourself from lofty rhetoric.
These tactics are remarkably effective at disarming us due to the way the words tend to resonate with core values that we typically hold. Take for example the following positive resonators: “fair” “free” “equal” “regulation”. These words reverberate with “good feelings”. Unfortunately politicians rarely hammer out the definitions they use for these words when addressing the public, leaving us with the responsibility of discerning their intent.
Aside from the obvious path of conducting your own research there is a valuable measuring stick that can be used to evaluate politicians on the fly. While you listen to what they are saying look for trigger words that tend to illicit a positive or negative emotional response when you hear them. Once you have identified one, listen carefully to the next thing the persuader says. Chances are this statement is the one that actually contains some content. Though this technique will not always work, it does provide one more tool to protect yourself from lofty rhetoric.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Exactly What are the Qualifications of a Justice?
All I have heard on the news today is commentary on President Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. While some sources offer evidence based criticism or support of her nomination that relates to the role she will have as a judge, the majority of the coverage I have seen have focused on her ethnicity, her socioeconomic background, or her general political views.
What I do not understand is what these things have to do with how Judge Sotomayor will perform as a justice of the Supreme Court. I have heard arguments that her unique background will give her empathy to underrepresented groups and that the fact that she is a Latina marks a step forward for minorities, but these arguments fail to deal with the real question: Will she do her job well? In order to address this question, as well as demonstrate the irrelevance of the aforementioned arguments, we must remind ourselves of the role of a Supreme Court Justice.
The principle responsibility of Supreme Court Justices is to rule on the constitutionality of currently enforced law. It is not their role to recommend, mandate, endorse, or otherwise influence policy, at least not through their formal position (it is another matter entirely for them to act on their political views when they are not on the bench). As a contrast, it is the role of elected politicians to influence the development and implementation of policy. The last thing I want is a justice who seeks to influence policy through the judicial structure. The result would be a breach of the separation of powers which is one of our most valuable lines of protection from the whims of individual politicians who are thinking more about their career than what is best for the country.
What I do not understand is what these things have to do with how Judge Sotomayor will perform as a justice of the Supreme Court. I have heard arguments that her unique background will give her empathy to underrepresented groups and that the fact that she is a Latina marks a step forward for minorities, but these arguments fail to deal with the real question: Will she do her job well? In order to address this question, as well as demonstrate the irrelevance of the aforementioned arguments, we must remind ourselves of the role of a Supreme Court Justice.
The principle responsibility of Supreme Court Justices is to rule on the constitutionality of currently enforced law. It is not their role to recommend, mandate, endorse, or otherwise influence policy, at least not through their formal position (it is another matter entirely for them to act on their political views when they are not on the bench). As a contrast, it is the role of elected politicians to influence the development and implementation of policy. The last thing I want is a justice who seeks to influence policy through the judicial structure. The result would be a breach of the separation of powers which is one of our most valuable lines of protection from the whims of individual politicians who are thinking more about their career than what is best for the country.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)