Tag Archives: regulation

Random Pseudo-Thoughts on Free Speech

Posted on by
Reply

Erin Ching ’16, of Swarthmore College, without a trace of irony:

What really bothered me is, the whole idea is that at a liberal arts college, we need to be hearing a diversity of opinion.  I don’t think we should be tolerating [Christian thinker Robert George’s] conservative views because that dominant culture embeds these deep inequalities in our society.

Sandra Korn, ’14, of Harvard:

[T]the liberal obsession with “academic freedom” seems a bit misplaced to me.  After all, no one ever has “full freedom” in research and publication.  Which research proposals receive funding and what papers are accepted for publication are always contingent on political priorities.

And

…why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of “academic freedom”?

This is what we’re teaching at our colleges and universities?  Maybe there’s too much “academic” freedom for the students, and not enough teaching of rigorous thinking.  Which flows from too much “academic” freedom of a different sort for the professors and their failure to teach the techniques of rigorous thinking.

h/t Robby Soave of The Daily Caller

Health Plans vs Emergency Cash Savings

Posted on by
Reply

In light of the rapidly rising cost of health “coverage,” courtesy of Obamacare, I thought I’d offer a few thoughts comparing health plans with emergency cash savings.  To concretize things, let’s say a medical emergency costs $50,000.  A three-person household consisting of 43- and 41-year old parents and a 16-year-old child, a family with an $85,000 annual income in Collin County, Texas might select a Silver Plan from the ObamaMart that has a $681 monthly premium and that pays 70% of covered medical expenses after deductible and copays (this Plan has a $12,700 annual deductible with copays of $500 for ER and $250 for a hospital stay of any length, but let’s ignore these for this comparison.  On the other hand, let’s say the $50k medical event is a comprised of items that are covered under the Plan.  Also, it should be clear that, even though I’m positing a three-member family, the principles illustrated would apply to a family of any size, from a single person on up).

Health Plan Pros:

  • provides all the coverage it ever will with the first premium

Health Plan Cons:

  • only useable for the covered items
  • premiums paid are lost forever from the perspective of the family—they can’t be recalled and redirected
  • covers low probability, high cost events (under Obamacare, routine, minor expenses, like annual checkups, contraceptives, and so on also are covered; I’ll come back to that below)
  • guaranteed to cover only a fraction of the covered item(s)’ actual expenses—70% of them under this family’s Plan; under Obamacare generally, the per centage can go as low as 60%

Emergency Cash Savings Pros:

  • accumulates money to cover those same low probability, high cost events
  • usable for any expense, and there are no arguments over whether the item is a covered item
  • have chance of paying for 100% of the emergency expense
  • entirely under control of family doing the saving, including how the money is held or invested.  Also, the person doing the saving gets the proceeds of any investing plan, not a Plan provider

Emergency Cash Savings Cons:

  • must be accumulated before there’s enough money to cover the emergency/medical event

Now consider how Health Plan providers (and the insurers in the remaining insurance industry—life, property, etc—generally) make their money.  First they estimate the likelihood of a payout for a covered event (and their actuarial statisticians are very good), then they aggregate that over the number of customers they have for that event coverage, and they arrive at a premium that exactly covers the expected payouts.  That is, if their numbers are right, the collected premiums will exactly pay for the most likely total payouts in, say, a year’s time.  Then the insurers plus up the premium actually charged so as to cover additional costs like R&D, marketing, and so on, and a profit.  The result of this is that the Health Plan buyer (for instance) pays a bit higher premium than he’s expected to collect on the actual occurrence of the medical event(s) for which he bought the Plan.

It seems to me that, at least for a family that’s fundamentally healthy and doesn’t take too many risks with that health (e.g., they eat moderately well and they exercise moderately regularly), they’re better off funding their own Emergency Cash Savings fund.  The pros and cons above favor the ECS, if the family is willing to run the risk of having such an event before their fund is fully loaded.

But look at what’s expected of the family, if it buys the Plan described at the outset: it’s expected to pay to the provider $681 per month, month in and month out, year in and year out, even if the covered medical event(s) never happen.

It occurs to me that if the family can afford to make those payments, it can afford instead to sock them away in its own ECS, ultimately fully funding it.  Doing that, at essentially 0% return (e.g., sticking the money into a bank savings account or a money market fund), means the family will accumulate the $50,000 of the posited medical event in six years.  Oh, and in those six years, the 30% not paid by their Plan also is covered.  Just getting to the $35,000 paid by the Plan will take a skosh over four years.

Now, invest that at a nominal rate, seed it with some startup money, and the family’s ECS is accumulated much more quickly.  And will continue to grow.

Notice, too, that that fund, under the sole control of the family, is not limited to a medical event, or to any particular purpose.  It’s available, also, to repair/replace the roof that got nailed in one of those Texas hail storms.  Or it can be drawn on to replace the car that failed catastrophically.  Or….  You don’t have that flexibility with a Health Plan.  And the Plan costs the same.

It Doesn’t Wash

Posted on by
Reply

The Department of Homeland Security wants a private company to provide a national license-plate tracking system that would give the agency access to vast amounts of information from commercial and law enforcement tag readers, according to a government proposal that does not specify what privacy safeguards would be put in place.

Such a national license-plate recognition database, ostensibly, would “help catch fugitive illegal immigrants.”  But once in existence, to what use would (not might) government put that database later?  Can you say NSA, boys and girls?  The danger is illustrated clearly, if unintentionally, by David Roberts, International Association of Chiefs of Police’s Technology Center Senior Program Manager:

We’d like to be able to keep the data as long as possible, because it does provide a rich and enduring data set for investigations down the line.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation understands (see the first link) the danger of Roberts’ goal:

Ultimately, you’re creating a national database of location information.  When all that data is compiled and aggregated, you can track somebody as they’re going through their life.

Such an open-ended dragnet of no one in particular, but simply of all of us, for vague, undefined future purposes in not consistent with individual liberty—or responsibility.

Even though the courts have ruled on “presumption of privacy,” they’ve gotten it wrong, basing their “assumption” on a measure of mindreading that simply doesn’t exist in our species.  The fact that the loud, vociferous, even zealous, hue and cry over evasions of privacy—real or perceived—even exists demonstrates that there is a very strong presumption of privacy held by each of us, even as we move about in public.

Indeed, the logic is flawed, also.  The fact that what we do is readily apparent to our fellow citizens as we wander the mall, walk the sidewalks, talk on our phones, drive on our streets, etc, is in no way an agreement the government can track our movements, much less create dossiers on each of us as we engage in these activities in the view of, or in concert with, our fellow citizens.

The government is not our fellow citizen; it is our political employee.  Even so, it has far too much power to be trusted with watching the things we let our fellow citizens see us do without a court’s oversight, without, for instance, a specific warrant for which a specific probable cause concerning a specific individual among us must first be demonstrated and sworn to by the government official desiring to investigate one of us.

The relationship between us—or any one of us—and government is not at all symmetrical, and there is very little reciprocity involved.  Arguments supporting such government activities as tracking of our out-of-home movements assume, erroneously, exactly that symmetry.

There’s no doubt that such a…tool…could achieve much good.  However, the good achieved is through convenience to government, not through a fundamental change in capabilities for hunting down specific bad guys.  The dangers such a tool represents to individual liberty and responsibility—to what it means to be an American—far outweigh the benefits of that convenience.

Update: Now HHS Undersecretary Jeh Johnson is saying the idea of having a private company develop a national database of our license plates has been canceled.  So, where are we?  Is the idea done?  Or is it being brought inside HHS, to be pursued sub rosa?

And why is the Undersecretary making this statement?  Where are the HHS Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius and her boss, President Barack Obama?

Another Obamacare Health Plan

Posted on by
Reply

Senators Mark Begich (D, AK), whose reelection race this fall is in real trouble, and Mark Warner (D, VA), whose reelection race is much tighter than it should be, are pushing a new Health Plan for Obamacare.

…individuals and small businesses can buy so-called copper plans.  The plans likely would have lower premiums, but purchasers would pay more of their ordinary health costs upfront.

Copper plans would cover, on average, 50% of medical costs, and while consumers’ out-of-pocket expenses would still be capped, that limit likely would be higher than the $6,350 maximum for individuals and $12,700 for families currently set by the law.

What’s the value of a health plan that requires extensive costs to be paid up front by the sick person before the plan starts covering—just a part of—those costs?

Even the CMS is having trouble seeing the sense of this.

A spokesperson for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services says there is not much more to say beyond what Jay Angoff, head of the Department of Health and Human Services office, told the WSJ about the plan: “I’m not sure that requiring people who have insurance to nevertheless pay for 50% of their costs themselves can reasonably be defined as decent coverage.”

I’m not sure, either.

Progressive Gun Rights

Posted on by
Reply

…are what government says they are.  Last week, though, the 9th Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, struck down a San Diego County, California law that asserted exactly that.  This law

requir[ed] residents to show a “pressing need” in order to get a permit to carry weapons in public.

However,

The judges found that in order to receive a permit, a person need only show a desire to defend himself outside the home.

Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, writing for the court, clearly does understand the situation.  Addressing three other Appellate Court rulings upholding public carry restrictions (a fourth Appellate Court struck such restrictions), he wrote

they misapprehend both the nature of the Second Amendment right and the implications of state laws that prevent the majority of responsible, law-abiding citizens from carrying in public for lawful self-defense reasons.

Jon Lowy, Director, Legal Action Project of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, demurred, however:

Neither history nor precedent supports this aberrant, split decision that concocts a dangerous right to carry hidden handguns in public places to people whom law enforcement has determined…have no good cause or qualifications to do so.

Rights are what a Progressive government says they are, according to this Progressive.

No, Mr Lowry.  You clearly do not understand inalienable rights, nor our Constitution.  The right to life is inalienable, and it carries with it the inalienable right to self-defense.  Neither are “concocted rights.”  These rights, moreover, carry within them the right to possess the means with which to carry out that defense.  Everywhere.  These inalienable rights are not at all limited to places convenient to government.  Full Stop.

Moreover, the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution says this:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The binding document, within which our governments—at all levels—must operate, has said all there is to say on our right to keep and bear arms.  Especially in public.  Governments have very little at all to add regarding “good cause or qualifications.”  Full Stop.