A Curious Little Blog

I watched a little of a debate tonight that included Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz, and it included a segment on the individual mandate.  Even though this was not the focus of the debate, there was enough discussion on it that I heard Sanders several times complain that we are the only nation that doesn't guarantee health care for its citizens.  (Sometimes he specified the only "advanced" country or some such.)  I was hoping Ted Cruz would come back with an argument like the following: "Your strongest argument for guaranteed health care seems to be that every other nation has it.  While this circumstance certainly means the concept merits consideration, I don't think we should jump to the conclusion that we should do it because other nations are doing it.  Let's consider the circumstances of those other nations; how many of them are as large and diverse as the United States?  Do any of them have a federal structure like we do that limits national power?...

I don't like to accuse people of lying, because usually what they have done can be accounted for by mistakes, excessive optimism, and other non-malicious reasons. What Jonathan Gruber has done can only be described as bald-faced lying. He did not make a "speak-o," the speaking equivalent of a typo, as he claims. A speako would be saying that there are 57 states (for instance). Stating over several complete sentences that the ACA required states to set up their own exchanges in order for their citizens to qualify for subsidies, on the other hand, can only be done through deliberate and conscious choice. Stating it three times on three different days could not possibly have been a mistake, and claiming now that it was a mistake cannot be anything but a lie. A cowardly, shameful lie. This much is obvious to pretty much everyone. What I wanted to make special note of was Gruber's initial response to the argument that providing subsidies through the federal excha...

Kudos to Mona Charen in this article for a nice turn of phrase: she describes the health care bill as "oozing" its way through Congress. Will Brown's election stop the ooze? And how should Democrats react? If I were a Democrat, I might well be in favour of pushing the bill at all costs. This is based partly on my depressing assessment that major legislation almost never gets repealed, and usually, to the contrary, expand over time. It might mean a beating for the Democrats in November, but it would be a major advance for them in the long run. Nancy Pelosi ("We will have health care one way or another") seems to be in favour of ramming the bill through, and I can't disagree with her logic. I do disagree, however, with these academics , who somehow conclude that "If there is a lesson in the Massachusetts vote, it is this: pass a bill." I understand what they are saying: a lot of Democrats are upset at the compromises that have been made on ...

According to many people, we are in the midst of a health care crisis. As evidence, people cite the large number of uninsured -- up to 43 million according to some estimates -- and the underlying problem of skyrocketing costs. Only higher education has increased at a rate comparable to health care in the past 30 years. But why has this happened? And does it constitute a crisis? Health care vs. health insurance Insurance exists to cover catastrophic costs that the insured would not otherwise be able to afford. If your house burns down, you are suddenly without anywhere to live and, in all probability, you still owe the mortgage on your house. If you die, you leave your family with burial expenses and the problem of making ends meet without your income. Home insurance and life insurance cover these two eventualities by paying a large sum in the event of tragedy, while collecting smaller amounts from a number of people who will never suffer the loss (but who cannot know this in adv...