Senin, 15 November 2010

One way or another, Medicare is going to go

It is becoming more and more apparent that the U.S. government has two choices: A) drastic cuts in health care expenditure, or B) a sovereign default, followed by drastic cuts in health care expenditure. Don't believe me? Look at this graph:










As you can see, though Social Security spending is projected to increase only slightly (as the Baby Boomers retire), but Medicare/Medicaid is projected to explode as health costs soar, sucking an ever-larger amount of our nation's GDP down the toilet of useless health "care." Other much-discussed deficit remedies - higher taxes, lower defense spending, and freezes on discretionary spending - will help only marginally and only for a few years, before the rampaging monster of health costs eats our government whole.

Now, a few points. Point the first: most of our excess health care costs, relative to other countries, go toward keeping fat elderly and middle-aged people alive (also known as "outpatient care"); the fact that our life expectancy is the same or slightly lower than that of other rich countries indicates that our nation is using high-tech expensive medical treatments to (imperfectly) cancel out poor health choices in early life. It's not working, and it is bankrupting us.

We are thus in a political bind, because seniors are disproportionately powerful in our electoral system. It was seniors, angry at Obama for cutting their Medicare to pay for expanded health coverage for the poor, who propelled the Republican Party to its historic landslide victory last week. Seniors fear and revile Obama's plan for socialized medicine for all, because it would necessitate cuts to the socialized medicine that seniors already enjoy.

Now, this is obviously unsustainable. Eventually, the big light-blue wedge on the graph above will force our government to either drastically cut Medicare or default on its sovereign debt. The latter would be an unmitigated disaster for the U.S. economy, and the austerity reforms that would be implemented in its wake would kill Medicare just as surely. However, seniors, with only a decade or two left to live, are perhaps less concerned about the nation's long-term sustainability than I am.

It would be nice to turn this point into a partisan one. I wish I could, as Paul Krugman and Kevin Drum do, simply point out that Democrats are willing to cut Medicare and Republicans are not, and wave my flag and say "Vote Democrat, and America will be saved!" But, although not yet a senior myself, I am old enough to remember 1996, when Bill Clinton pilloried Bob Dole for daring to have suggested cuts to Medicare. I am forced to conclude that, as un-serious as the Republican party is about deficit reduction in general, pandering to seniors is the game that everyone plays.

Our political economy now looks something like this: The party in power, realizing that Medicare is the Death Star, meekly and quietly suggest small and marginal cuts in the program, disguising their suggestions in a thick blanket of technocratic jargon and hiding the cuts inside much larger bills. But the loyal opposition dutifully sifts through the mountains of obfuscation, locates the Medicare cuts, and screams about it until blue in the face. The seniors, quaking in their slippers, turn out in a mighty horde to throw the incumbents out; wash, rinse, repeat, while wages stagnate, the deficit spirals upward, and American power declines.

What do we do about this sorry state of affairs? Sad and painful as it is for me to say this - because I really do have a lot of sympathy for old people - the answer has to be "age war." Unless younger and middle-aged voters unite in grim resolve to "throw Grandma from the train," she is going to leap off anyway and drag us onto the tracks with her.

There are only two ways to smash rising health costs. Either our government must socialize the entire health-care industry and implement draconian rationing ("death panels") to cut costs, or Medicare/Medicaid must be ruthlessly slashed, and as costs continue to rise, slashed again, until brutal market forces stop health providers from raising prices for services that fail to prolong our lives. And what this will mean, I am fairly sure, is a partial return to the culture of the multi-family home, as children are forced to take on some of the job of palliative care for their elders that hospitals now provide. In the long run, of course, a government-spearheaded public health campaign to reduce unhealthy lifestyles (fat, smoking, malnutrition) will help to bring down health costs, but it will not bear fruit in time to save us from fiscal disaster.

In any case, I wish there were another way, but political events have made it clear that Medicare is going to die. The only remaining question is whether it will kill our economy as it goes down.

Kamis, 11 November 2010

Online Backup Programs



In a recent article on PCMAG.com we read a few frightening statistics:



1) Of the 700 million computers in the world, about 10% will crash each day.



2) 50% of the business who did not have a back up of their files will never reopen in the event a main computer or server crashes.

3) Only 6% of internet users actually back up their data on a daily basis.



The best way to avoid becoming one of the tragedies is to invest in an Online Backup program. For home use there are a number to choose from such as Mozy, Carbonite, IDrive, MiMedia, Norton Online Backup, SOS Online Backup and others. Presently they are easy to setup and once in operation they will all automatically backup any changes you make to your computer's files without you having to do a thing.



Depending on the size of your computer's hard drive and the speed of your Internet access, the initial backup can take some time. It can range from a few hours, to days or even a full week. If you have a lot of digital photographs on your computer, you could be looking at a week or so for the initial backup. But once the initial backup is established, the Online Backup will do incremental backups only on files which have changed or new files added since the last backup. Those incremental backups will run fairly quickly. Before deciding if Online Backups for home or business are for you, consider what the ramifications would be if you lost all of your personal photos or all of your business records in a computer crash.



Minggu, 07 November 2010

How Pick And Pack Services Can Augment A Business

Pick and pack services are services in which designated orders are picked from an inventory or inventories to be shipped to the end customer. Complex businesses which can deal with separate inventories can greatly benefit from such a service. Fulfillment services are beneficial in terms of cost and efficiency for the more intricate delivery jobs.

Sometimes, in order to ship an order, businesses

Jumat, 05 November 2010

Winterize Your Outside Faucet


Disconnect your outdoor hoses from their outdoor faucets before it gets too cold. We have already had the first freeze warning for Fall 2010, so if you have not done so, now is a good time to disconnect your outdoor hoses from their outdoor faucets and store the hoses away. If you fail to do this, you run the risk of the water in the attached hoses freezing and cracking the water pipes going into your house. In the Spring when you turn on the hose you could have substantial water damage in your home from the cracked pipes.

Selasa, 02 November 2010

On "libertarians"
















Regarding
my last post, an anonymous commenter asks:
Why do you insist that Angus is a conservative? Are you unable to make a distinction between conservatives and libertarians?

Hint: they are quite different.
Two questions here. The first is easy; I insist that Angus is a conservative because he says a lot of the exact same things that self-described conservatives say. Political ideology is defined by consensus, not by a dictionary. If you are marching in an army, and you point around you and say "I'm not with these guys," I'm going to have to be a little skeptical of your claim. (Yes, I realize that there is a substantial possibility that Angus did not leave the anonymous comment; hence, I realize that saying "your claim" is not entirely appropriate in this situation; it is a figure of speech).

The second question is harder: What is the difference between self-styled "conservatives" and self-styled "libertarians"?

The common answer is: Social issues. Though many conservative politicians and writers call themselves "libertarian," their stances against gay marriage, immigration, and drug use give them away as closet authoritarians. True libertarians, we often hear, agree with conservatives on economic issues (lower taxes, less regulation) and with liberals on social issues (legal marijuana, gay marriage, more immigration).

I do not buy this distinction. As I see it, the American "conservative" ideology is not a rigid and unified canon, but a diverse set of interest groups held together by an unusually stable alliance of convenience. From reading conservative blogs and magazines, watching Fox News, and talking to self-described conservatives, I have grokked that the groups that make up the alliance we call "conservatism" are three: 1. businesspeople and other well-to-do folks who want lower taxes and regulation, 2. ethnic tribalists who think that white, Christian, and Southern/rural people and groups should have political and social primacy, and 3. militarists who want our military to be really big and to go kick peoples' butts. These are known in the press, respectively, as "economic conservatives," "social conservatives," and "neoconservatives." Militarists are the smallest group, so I'll ignore them for now.

What do these groups have to do with each other? Why has this coalition-of-the-willing endured for so long? In a word, socialism. The conservative movement as we know it is an alliance of two groups that felt threatened by the socialist (or "leftist") movement of the 20th Century - economic conservatives because socialists wanted to take their money, social conservatives because socialists wanted to diversify and liberalize their culture. As Wooldridge and Micklethwait document in The Right Nation, economic conservatives had to hold their nose a bit to join with a bunch of moralizing Bible-thumpers, and lower-income social conservatives had to do a bit of doublethink to avoid noticing that conservative economic policies mostly benefit rich people. All this is well known. The difference in priorities between the two main conservative constituencies is undoubtedly why conservatives spend so much time demonizing liberals; they want to keep the focus on the common enemy.

Which brings me to the question: What the heck is the difference between an "economic conservative" and a "libertarian"? Apparently, whether or not that individual publicly endorses the big-tent alliance described above. A true libertarian, we are told, holds true to his ideological self-consistency, and either votes libertarian or not at all.

Which is absurd, of course. On election day, most libertarians hold their noses and vote Republican, exactly as many "greens" and Naderites and assorted other leftists hold their nose and vote Democrat, because at the end of the day, people are not fools, and they understand the two-party system and how it works. In other words, when push comes to shove, libertarians behave exactly like the economic conservatives with whom they are identically one and the same. A few snarky throwaway protest votes do not constitute a separate movement.

And economic conservatives (including many who routinely refer to themselves as "libertarian"), far from being marginalized or disaffected within their movement, comprise the intellectual and ideological leading edge of that movement. It is think tanks like the "libertarian" Cato Institute and publications like the National Review who create and/or promulgate all of the economic ideas that later get parroted at Tea Party rallies and on Glenn Beck's talk show. Why do you think that a bunch of anti-immigration, anti-gay marriage, anti-drug-legalization fire-breathers are snapping up copies of Hayek's The Road to Serfdom? Hint: it's NOT because "libertarians" and "economic conservatives" are quite different.

It is "libertarians" who have created and promulgated the idea that Obama is a leftist, despite his very middle-of-the-road attitude toward business. It is "libertarians" who have given the legions of social conservatives, who hated Obama from Minute 1 because he was black and weird and intellectual, an excuse to associate Obama with Hitler without sounding like the racist tribalist reactionaries that they really are. "Big government!", the Tea Partiers shriek, when in fact they are dog-whistling "Nigger hippie outsider!" The "libertarian" enablers of this little pretense smile behind cupped hands, knowing that when tribal animus propels the Republican Party to power (as it will this evening), they will get their lower taxes and their deregulation. And if gay marriage and immigration take a hit, well, not optimal, but not catastrophic; those issues were never top priorities for economic conservatives anyway.

And those who cast snarky throwaway protest votes on election day will shrug and say "Don't blame me; I'm not a conservative, I'm a libertarian. Don't you know the difference?"

Kamis, 28 Oktober 2010

What gets conservatives' goat














Over at Kids Prefer Cheese, blogger Angus (after merciless heckling from Yours Truly in the comments section) relents and gives me
his reasons for thinking Obama is an "uncompromising" far-leftist:
So I started to wonder exactly why I had the perception that Obama was "pretty far left".

Hence this Top 10 signs Obama is a lefty list:

10. His incessant pandering to unions

9. His child-like love for high speed rail

8. His pushing for subsidies for solar, wind, & ethanol (i.e. uneconomic boondoggles).

7. His refusal to understand that electric cars actually burn coal in many parts of the country!

6. His firm belief that a small group of experts can competently run the economy

5. The amazing growth in the Federal budget under his watch

4. His habit of flip-flopping like a boated marlin

3. His inability to consider issues of moral hazard or unintended consequences in policymaking

2. His belief that anyone who disagrees with him is stupid or evil or both

1. His overall superior, moralistic, and condescending attitude
Not much evidence for the "uncompromising" part (what's the difference between "flip-flopping" and compromise, again?). But I'll take what I can get. At last we know what makes someone a leftist in conservative eyes.

Two big points here.

Point #1: Attitude speaks louder than actions. Reasons 1, 2, 3, 6, and 10 are all about attitude, mannerism, and rhetoric, as opposed to real policy actions. This reinforces something I've been slowly realizing over the past few years - in politics, what group or movement you seem to be part of is more important than what you actually do. I think this was behind much of the anti-Bush animus that liberals felt long before Bush launched wars, attacked civil liberties, or even got elected in the first place. And as I've mentioned, I think Obama is seen as anti-business despite his efforts to do things to help business mainly because of his rhetoric lambasting "multinational corporations" and "big business." In other words, politics is first and foremost about coalition-building and allegiance; policy is always and everywhere a secondary consideration.

Point #2: Conservatives really, really love oil and cars. Reasons 7, 8, and 10 on Angus' list are about Obama's support for alternative energy and alternative transportation. At first, this might be surprising - since when does wanting to build trains and support technological R&D make one an uncompromising far-leftist? But if you look carefully, you'll see that this is no oddity at all. Conservatives really dislike any thing that threatens America's dependence on oil or our use of the automobile. The blinding animus conservatives hold for rail is well-documented, as is their decades-long effort to kill alternative energy research. But why? Possible explanations include:

A) The oil industry is the main financial backer of the Republican Party (see: Koch bros., Halliburton, Exxon).

B) Promotion of alternative energy is seen as a backdoor to large-scale government regulation of carbon-producing activity (i.e. everything), which is seen as a backdoor to socialism.

C) Rail transport and dense urban areas both force white people into daily contact with nonwhites, which conservatives really really really don't want.

D) The car is seen as an instrument of individual empowerment and liberty, and hence "libertarians" think we should promote car transport.

I'd say there is some truth to all of these. But it's still sometimes astonishing how central the defense of the car/oil transport structure is to the policy priorities and worldviews of conservatives (and "libertarians"), especially considering how much government spending and regulatory policy has gone into creating that structure. Where social conservatives draw their battle lines on religious issues (abortion) or racial issues (welfare, affirmative action), economic conservatives' wedge issue is transportation and urban structure. Of course, the fact that lots of black people currently live in urban centers probably has a lot to do with the enduring strength of the conservative big tent.

Anyway, thanks to Angus for giving me his reasons for believing Obama is a leftist, and props for making it an honest one. I may never stop being surprised at how much A) attitude and B) transportation issues matter to conservative thinkers. But I suppose that is my fault, not theirs.

Selasa, 26 Oktober 2010

Insurance Term: "Underwriter"


When discussing insurance, whether in the news or with your own insurance agent you hear the term “Underwriter”. I thought that with this blog post I would tell you a little bit about what an underwriter does in the property and casualty insurance world and tell you where there name comes from.

An underwriter is a person who works for a financial institution, and for this blog we will specifically talk about a property and casualty insurance company. The underwriter’s job is to assess risk and determine if an individual or business is eligible for the insurance company’s products and what pricing they will receive. They pour over the data give them by either you the customer, your insurance agent, other third party data sources and/or the historical data of your account to help them come up with their decisions.


So where does the term “Underwriter” come from? Back in the late 1600’s groups of merchants, investors and sea captains gathered at a little coffee shop in London owned by a man named Edward Lloyd. Between sips of Ed’s coffee the merchants who had a large cargo of goods to ship overseas would sit down with business investors and ask them to give some kind of financial backing if something happened to their cargo of goods while being shipped. Investors would agree to pay for the lost cargo if the ship didn’t make it to its destinations but required a fee or premium from the merchant for taking on this possible loss. Eventually the merchants started to post on the walls of Ed’s coffee shop the amount of backing they needed for their shipment. The investor would then come and writer their name under the request and there the contract was bound. The fact that the investor wrote “under” the request is key because there is where they came up with the term “Underwriter”.


One other item to note; does the named Lloyd sound familiar? Edward Lloyd’s coffee shop was the birth place of Lloyd’s of London.