I was reading the Wall Street Journal today, and I came across an article entitled Why the Doctor Can't See You. In the article, John C. Goodman points out a paramount problem with Obamacare: the health-care system cannot possibly deliver on the huge increase in demand for primary-care services. This means that Obamacare is going to provide such services as birth control, annual checkups, and reported just today in Reuters, there is the probability that Obamacare will also provide HIV testing. Those on the Left think that this is a benefit, but in reality, this is quite unsettling. Why?
It's not because Obamacare is going to provide more universal health insurance coverage. In spite of the fact Obama already promised that no one would lose their insurance under the new or that universal health insurance would be provided, I already know that based on CBO estimations, Obamacare will cause many to lose their insurance.
Thus in this instance, not only will more people be insured, but more services will be provided. More health services are great. What can possibly be wrong with that? When the government subsidizes something (e.g., birth control, college loans), the decisions consumers make are distorted. With regards to covering services under health care, the impression left is that these services are free. To quote Milton Friedman in a cliché-like manner, "there is no such thing as a free lunch." When the mentality is that "I don't have to worry because my insurance will cover it," what results is a price spiral in the health care market due to the increased demand.
When demand outpaces supply, the result is a shortage. It is bad enough that prior to any discussion about Obamacare, there was a shortage in doctors. With the bill in place and the government becoming more and more intrusive in health care decisions, not only are there many physicians who want to pull out of business because the bill stifles their ability to make their own decisions about their own practice, but the Association of American Medical Colleges is predicting a physician shortage of 130,600 by 2025. Even when using the "more simplistic" competitive market model, I'm not at all surprised that the economics matches up with the projected losses. If the New York Times can pick up on this, then you know something is going on.
Regarding the pro-Obamacare mentality, Uwe Reinhardt points out that "it's a strange theory that having no insurance coverage and ability to pay for healthcare is better than having insurance coverage but having to wait for a doctor's appointment to get non-emergency care." As long as proponents are able to sleep at night because "doing something was better than maintaining the status quo," I suppose having longer waiting lines is perfectly acceptable.
Monday, August 20, 2012
Friday, August 17, 2012
Decreased Carbon Emissions & How Capitalism Helped the Environment, Again!
Earlier this month, the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) came out with a finding saying that America's carbon emissions haven't been this low since 1992. It might seem as if I'm a bit behind on the news. However, this response is not because of the EIA, but rather because of an article that AP published yesterday evening that I found on NPR. The second paragraph is what particularly caught my eye:
It'd be a safe bet that reading that would cause a gag reflex for many environmentalists because "government wasn't the solution." The main "culprit" was that the natural gas market opened up through technology and innovation. As the article points out, there are other factors such as methane emission or effects of drilling. Without going into the whole fracking debate, the markets have provided what can be categorized as a short-term solution to the problem. Although environmental policy has to be envisioned on the long-term, there is still reason to be optimistic for two reasons. One is that the trend shows a retardation in carbon emissions. The second is that with this extra time, the private sector can continue to innovate within that time period and come up with more green technology.
This begs a more fundamental question: how is it that the "free market" system succeeded and the government failed on this one? I thought businesses, especially those corporations, were exploitative and whose sole purpose was to maximize profit. That's part of the problem: letting the anti-capitalists on the Left dictate the narrative on capitalism.
Capitalism produces more good than harm because of its conservationist ethos. Choice theory is the idea that people respond based on incentives and maximizing benefits. Although it does not explain all of behavior, especially given the irrationality behind the thought processes of many individuals, it is nevertheless a solid foundation upon which one can explain much of behavior. In this scenario, we can look at both the individual and the business to figure out why from a microeconomic standpoint, individuals are incentivized to conserve resources.
The basic premise behind economics is that there are a limited amount of resources, and thus, we need to figure out the best way to allocate those scarcities. In a capitalist society, there is adequate information to determine the prices via supply and demand. Businesses have an incentive to use as few resources as possible, largely due to the fact that it cost more money. Let's use the Coca Cola company as an example. There was a time where they used glass bottles. However, when the aluminum can came along, the company used those. Why? Although saving the environment ends up being a wonderful by-product in any example I can give, the truth is that it takes less energy to produce, re-use, and recycle aluminum than it does glass. A business is incentivized to be efficient, whereas the government, for a myriad of reasons, does not face the same incentive scheme.
Even with individuals, the idea of providing property rights is better than communal property or some less extreme variant thereof. Again, it boils down to incentives. Some might like wallowing in filth, but a clear majority of individuals like a more pristine place to own. Since it's the individual's property, the incentive to maintain its overall quality is much higher. That means a better use of resources, especially since the individual is bearing the costs. Without that cost-bearing, the individual's incentives are distorted, which more often than not leads to overconsumption and inefficient use of resources. If the goal is environmental preservation, capitalism is a superior option.
I want to conclude my thoughts here because at this time, I only wanted to provide a primary overview of "capitalism and environmentalism." There are many sub-topics that can be addressed separately.
Capitalism is normally not seen as a solution because capitalism is not portrayed positively. By using a different way to conceptualize capitalism, it can be at the forefront in the marketplace of ideas, and thus bring viable solutions to our environmental issues.
Many of the world's climate scientists didn't see the drop coming, in large part because it happened as a result of market forces rather than government action against carbon dioxide, a greenhouse that traps heat in the atmosphere.
It'd be a safe bet that reading that would cause a gag reflex for many environmentalists because "government wasn't the solution." The main "culprit" was that the natural gas market opened up through technology and innovation. As the article points out, there are other factors such as methane emission or effects of drilling. Without going into the whole fracking debate, the markets have provided what can be categorized as a short-term solution to the problem. Although environmental policy has to be envisioned on the long-term, there is still reason to be optimistic for two reasons. One is that the trend shows a retardation in carbon emissions. The second is that with this extra time, the private sector can continue to innovate within that time period and come up with more green technology.
This begs a more fundamental question: how is it that the "free market" system succeeded and the government failed on this one? I thought businesses, especially those corporations, were exploitative and whose sole purpose was to maximize profit. That's part of the problem: letting the anti-capitalists on the Left dictate the narrative on capitalism.
Capitalism produces more good than harm because of its conservationist ethos. Choice theory is the idea that people respond based on incentives and maximizing benefits. Although it does not explain all of behavior, especially given the irrationality behind the thought processes of many individuals, it is nevertheless a solid foundation upon which one can explain much of behavior. In this scenario, we can look at both the individual and the business to figure out why from a microeconomic standpoint, individuals are incentivized to conserve resources.
The basic premise behind economics is that there are a limited amount of resources, and thus, we need to figure out the best way to allocate those scarcities. In a capitalist society, there is adequate information to determine the prices via supply and demand. Businesses have an incentive to use as few resources as possible, largely due to the fact that it cost more money. Let's use the Coca Cola company as an example. There was a time where they used glass bottles. However, when the aluminum can came along, the company used those. Why? Although saving the environment ends up being a wonderful by-product in any example I can give, the truth is that it takes less energy to produce, re-use, and recycle aluminum than it does glass. A business is incentivized to be efficient, whereas the government, for a myriad of reasons, does not face the same incentive scheme.
Even with individuals, the idea of providing property rights is better than communal property or some less extreme variant thereof. Again, it boils down to incentives. Some might like wallowing in filth, but a clear majority of individuals like a more pristine place to own. Since it's the individual's property, the incentive to maintain its overall quality is much higher. That means a better use of resources, especially since the individual is bearing the costs. Without that cost-bearing, the individual's incentives are distorted, which more often than not leads to overconsumption and inefficient use of resources. If the goal is environmental preservation, capitalism is a superior option.
I want to conclude my thoughts here because at this time, I only wanted to provide a primary overview of "capitalism and environmentalism." There are many sub-topics that can be addressed separately.
Capitalism is normally not seen as a solution because capitalism is not portrayed positively. By using a different way to conceptualize capitalism, it can be at the forefront in the marketplace of ideas, and thus bring viable solutions to our environmental issues.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Berachot 13b: Yes, Being Too Pious is Possible
I notice that I haven't blogged in a while. Plus, the re-commencement of the Daf Yomi cycle made me want to see how often I can crank out some thoughts on a recently-read Talmudic portion. If it occurs frequently enough, I might have to have a separate blog for Talmudic thoughts. But for now, I'll just shoot for once a week, b'li neder.
Tonight, I was fortunate to be able to have a Skype study session with a good friend on yesterday's Talmud portion of Berachot 13. We're at that point where the rabbis discuss whether to say the Shema with kavannah, in which language, and even the appropriate posture in which to say the Shema. The Talmud is a highly tangential text. Some of the tangents are very close to the initial Mishna's argument; others are way out in left field. There was one tangent of peculiar interest in Gemara 13b. Symmachus (סומכוס בן יוסף) says that one who extends the ד in the word אחד while saying Shema is rewarded where his days and years are extended. This passage is followed by a story of where Rabbi Yemera was seated before Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba:
ר' ירמיה הוה יתיב קמיה דר' [חייא בר אבא] חזייה דהוה מאריך טובא א"ל כיון דאמליכתיה למעלה ולמטה ולארבע רוחות השמים תו לא צריכת
Essentially, R. Chiyya bar Abba was excessively extending the ד. Rabbi Yemera's response was "Once you have crowned Him in your thoughts over everything above, in Heaven, below, on earth, and in the four corners of the heavens, you need not extend any further." In other words, "enough is enough," or as I like to put it, "There is too much of a good thing, even piety." Jews need to serve G-d out of love and should not accept moral passivity. I'm certainly not going to argue that. However, there is a point where one can take noble intentions too far. It's a problem we see in today's Orthodox Judaism, and one of its primary manifestations is replacing chumra (strictures) with din (law). This is not the mindset of every Orthodox Jew, to be sure, but it has become more prevalent over time. When piety is set as the baseline, it becomes virtually impossible to adequately practice Judaism according to the standards set today.
Rabbi Yochanan is later mentioned in the Gemara during the discussion on whether one can lay on one's back while reciting the Shema. The normative ruling is that it is prohibited. However, R. Yochanan was able to recite it while lying down while slightly leaning because he was corpulent (i.e., really, really overweight), and any other posture would have caused him much duress. Based on the aforementioned mentality, I would metaphorically wager that if R. Yochanan were around now, he would have to "toughen up" and get out of bed to say the Shema.
When realizing that there is too much of a good thing, we not only have to remember that there are certain times when leniencies are acceptable (and yes, at times, preferable), but also remember that halacha is the means by which a Jew serves G-d, not an end in itself. In short, a Jew is supposed to do as many mitzvot without going overboard. Given the status quo, I guess that's easier said than done.
Tonight, I was fortunate to be able to have a Skype study session with a good friend on yesterday's Talmud portion of Berachot 13. We're at that point where the rabbis discuss whether to say the Shema with kavannah, in which language, and even the appropriate posture in which to say the Shema. The Talmud is a highly tangential text. Some of the tangents are very close to the initial Mishna's argument; others are way out in left field. There was one tangent of peculiar interest in Gemara 13b. Symmachus (סומכוס בן יוסף) says that one who extends the ד in the word אחד while saying Shema is rewarded where his days and years are extended. This passage is followed by a story of where Rabbi Yemera was seated before Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba:
ר' ירמיה הוה יתיב קמיה דר' [חייא בר אבא] חזייה דהוה מאריך טובא א"ל כיון דאמליכתיה למעלה ולמטה ולארבע רוחות השמים תו לא צריכת
Essentially, R. Chiyya bar Abba was excessively extending the ד. Rabbi Yemera's response was "Once you have crowned Him in your thoughts over everything above, in Heaven, below, on earth, and in the four corners of the heavens, you need not extend any further." In other words, "enough is enough," or as I like to put it, "There is too much of a good thing, even piety." Jews need to serve G-d out of love and should not accept moral passivity. I'm certainly not going to argue that. However, there is a point where one can take noble intentions too far. It's a problem we see in today's Orthodox Judaism, and one of its primary manifestations is replacing chumra (strictures) with din (law). This is not the mindset of every Orthodox Jew, to be sure, but it has become more prevalent over time. When piety is set as the baseline, it becomes virtually impossible to adequately practice Judaism according to the standards set today.
Rabbi Yochanan is later mentioned in the Gemara during the discussion on whether one can lay on one's back while reciting the Shema. The normative ruling is that it is prohibited. However, R. Yochanan was able to recite it while lying down while slightly leaning because he was corpulent (i.e., really, really overweight), and any other posture would have caused him much duress. Based on the aforementioned mentality, I would metaphorically wager that if R. Yochanan were around now, he would have to "toughen up" and get out of bed to say the Shema.
When realizing that there is too much of a good thing, we not only have to remember that there are certain times when leniencies are acceptable (and yes, at times, preferable), but also remember that halacha is the means by which a Jew serves G-d, not an end in itself. In short, a Jew is supposed to do as many mitzvot without going overboard. Given the status quo, I guess that's easier said than done.
Friday, August 3, 2012
Parsha Vaetchanan: The Importance of Saying Shema
This week begins the Daf Yomi cycle, which is a seven-and-a-half year period in which Jews read one folio of Talmud a day. The first tractate, Tractate Berachot, begins with a discussion about saying the Shema (שמע), which consists of Deuteronomy 6:4-9, 11:13-21, and Numbers 15:37-41. Not only does the שמע begin the Talmud, but they are also ideally the last words a Jew is to utter in life, the שמע is a prayer to be recited twice a day, and the שמע is also written on tefillin scrolls. What makes this prayer so important that many Jews consider it to be one of the most important prayers? A look at the first paragraph of שמע (Deuteronomy 6:4-9), which happens to be in this week's Torah portion, provides some insight.
- Centrality of Jewish faith. "שמע ישראל יהוה אלוהינו יהוה אחד." Hear 'O Israel, G-d is our L-rd, G-d is one. These first words of the שמע in Deuteronomy 6:4 are key. The first implication is that G-d exists. In addition to G-d's existence, this verse is monotheistic in nature. There are not multiple deities (polytheism) or a triune deity (Christianity); G-d is Infinite Oneness, even if we perceive Him in multiple ways. There aren't two battling forces of good and evil like that of Zoroastrianism, and we don't pray to multiple, competing idols. G-d is the Ultimate Source. In the Torah scroll, the ע in the word שמע and the ד in the word אחד. If you put the letters together, you get the word עד, which means "witness." The Jews are meant to be witnesses to this concept.
- Loving G-d. The following verse says that you shall "love G-d with all your heart, all your soul, and all your might." Rabbi Isaac ben Moses Amara asked an important question because it brings up a good point: how can you command an emotion? After all, emotions can be volatile and thus more difficult to control. Also, looking at the Talmud (Berachot 54a, 61b) provides insight of what Deuteronomy 6:5 means. In the mishna, it says that "with all your heart" is in reference to both the good and evil inclinations. "All your might" indicates money, since money is referred to in the Bible as might. Alternatively, it can mean that with every measure that He metes out to you, you still thank Him. Finally, "all your soul" denotes "even if your soul is to be taken from this life," which is why the Gemara subsequently tells the story of Rabbi Akiva's untimely death. With these factors in mind, it is why Judaism is heavily focused on the deeds of an individual, and this verse is no exception. The answer of the Sfat Emet, a Chassidic rabbi of the late nineteenth/early twentieth century, was that in order to truly show love to G-d, his actions must speak louder than words, beliefs, or what ever transient emotions might exist at a given time. In our actions, we are supposed to "give it our all," and the focal point is G-d (פונה).
- Torah and its Transmission. The Torah has been likened to water. In a spiritual sense, the Jewish soul is quenched much like water quenches thirst, which is why we speak of the Torah "when we sit it in our homes and on our way (Deuteronomy 6:7)," i.e., Torah study is very important. What's more is that we are to transmit Torah to the next generation (ibid). Although the literal meaning of לבניך is "your sons" or "your children," the Rashi cites the Sifrei in saying that the term can also refer to one's students [regardless of age]. As previously mentioned, our actions have to line up with our words. "Do as I say, not as I do" is not a Jewish value. Merely telling children or students to do something while the teacher or parent does the opposite isn't a good teaching tool. Only by doing what we teach can provide lessons truly learned. The ability to transmit the Torah as such is one of the essentials that has kept Judaism alive for all these years.
- Mezuzah and Tefillin. Aside from being d'oraita rituals that involve scrolls mentioned in this passage (verses 8 and 9), it's hard to see a more spiritual commonality. In his book "Between G-d and Man," R. Abraham Joshua Heschel talks about why we need to recite prayer three times a day, and more pertinently, why we need to recite שמע twice a day. "A scientific theory," he says (p. 43), "once it is announced and accepted, does not have to be repeated twice a day. The insights of wonder must be constantly kept alive. Since there is a need for daily wonder, there is a need for daily worship." What Heschel is pointing out is that we are spiritually fragile creatures. Our ability to remember and internalize that wonder can be rather short-term. We need that reaffirmation constantly. That is why ever time one passes through a doorpost, one kisses the mezuzah. That is why when Jewish men put on tefillin, they not only literally bind themselves, but metaphorically bind themselves to G-d as a reminder of what we are here to do.
Friday, July 27, 2012
The Aurora Shooting and the Unjustifiable Hysteria Behind the Call for More Gun Control
One week ago from today, a very unfortunate tragedy occurred. A psychopathic man who was under the delusion that he was "The Joker" went into a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. He threw two hissing gas canisters into the crowd and proceeded to shoot innocent civilians with a rifle. There ended up being 58 wounded and 12 murdered people. I cannot begin to imagine what the families of the victims are going through. However, gun control advocates couldn't help themselves and have subsequently used this calamity in hopes to bring about more gun control laws. Mayor "I'm Going to Ban Your Sodas" Bloomberg wasted no time in demanding that the presidential candidates focus on enacting greater gun control measures. Many others have jumped on the bandwagon to require more restrictions on gun laws. What I would like to discern is whether this tragedy warrants the call for more gun control.
The first point I want to bring up is regarding the nature of shooting sprees. The first is that shooting sprees, however sorrowful they might be, are nevertheless relatively infrequent occurrences resulting in few casualties. It is also prudent to remind ourselves that guns laws are only applicable to law-abiding citizens. Hardened criminals are criminals precisely because they have no respect for the law. If a criminal is intent on breaking the law, no amount of gun control laws are going to stop the pursuit of that crime. Gun control laws only shift power to the criminals while law-abiding citizens are rendered defenseless.
If you are under the impression that the police are going to help, think again. The police aren't around 24/7 (Thank goodness!). Criminals are at least smart enough to have the intent of committing a crime when cops aren't around. Even so, the Supreme Court even ruled that the police have no legal obligation to protect people (Castle Rock v. Gonzales, Warren v. District of Columbia).
Gun deaths such at these are very emotional for many people. However, we have to put it all into perspective. Guns are not even close to being a leading cause of death in America. If we are to go after guns, we might as well start banning cigarettes, alcohol, and cars, not to mention mandating exercise and a healthy diet because these would at least address issues that kill many more people in this country. Seriously, when does the ridiculousness end?
There is also the issue of the number of lives that are saved by guns in self-defense, which shadows the number of lives that are taken in gun-related incidents. There is also the matter that gun deaths in this country have been on the decline for the past twenty-plus years (See Census and FBI data). Even the Left-leaning Ezra Klein was kind enough to provide a chart showing that trend (see below).
There is also the matter of the Second Amendment, which has been upheld by the Supreme Court as a right to bear arms. Guns don't kill people. They are inanimate objects that can either be used to murder others or guns can be used to protect individuals or oneself from being murdered. Implicit within our Second Amendment rights is our right to self-defense in order to do things such as protect and secure our person, property, and freedom.
Ultimately, our response to how we enact legislation should consider the proportion to the severity and prevalence of a given problem. Given my aforementioned points, the gun control crowd is not reacting appropriately. Having a society without guns only works when there are no criminals within a society's midst. Until that day comes along, we should avoid the hysteria and ardently maintain our right to bear arms.
Ultimately, our response to how we enact legislation should consider the proportion to the severity and prevalence of a given problem. Given my aforementioned points, the gun control crowd is not reacting appropriately. Having a society without guns only works when there are no criminals within a society's midst. Until that day comes along, we should avoid the hysteria and ardently maintain our right to bear arms.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
The Premature But Nevertheless Telling CBO Report on Obamacare
It has been nearly a month since the unfortunate Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare. Yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released their adjusted report on the costs of Obamacare. You're probably wondering why I call this report "premature." The reason for this is because the results and impacts of this legislation are more decentralized due to the Supreme Court's ruling on Medicaid. As I previously explained, the ruling has provided the states the option to a) not be coerced to expanding their Medicaid program, and b) the health care exchanges essentially need to be provided by the state in order for it to work most effectively. As the CBO report admits (p. 2), "what the states will be able to do and what they will decide to do are both highly uncertain," thereby postulating that "CBO and JCT's assessments in this analysis should not be viewed as representing a single definitive interpretation of how the ACD should or will be implemented in light of the Court's decision." In other words, by the CBO's own admission, being able to sufficiently do a cost-benefit analysis is premature.
In spite of that prematurity, we can still draw general conclusions from what will happen as a result of Obamacare.
The first has to do with the costs itself. Although those on the Left like to point out that the net costs had a downward adjustment of $84 billion, that's because in net terms, a million people are losing their insurance. Obama's promise was that everyone who has insurance will be able to keep it. The last CBO report on Obamacare (p. 4) estimated that there would be a net loss of 3-5 million who are insured by their employers. This report had an upward revision (Table 1; see below) on the effect of those who would receive insurance.
Nevertheless, I have to wonder: the federal government is spending billions of dollars that it doesn't have in order to set up these health care exchanges, and there are still 30 million people without insurance? And here I thought the bill was supposed to provide universal health coverage. I guess that was my mistake.
The price tag is still bothersome and only gets worse each time projections are made. This legislation is still going to cause a net increase of $1.168T (Table 2), which goes against Obama's promised $900B price tag. I don't understand where those on the Left, or even the CBO for that matter, have this idea that this is going to reduce health care costs. How does spending billions on health insurance exchanges with a de facto zero net effect on the uninsured going to save money?
Also, how does expanding a program that is running up costs (Medicaid 2011 Actuarial Report, 2011; p. 15) even faster than Social Security going to help at all? For one, the federal government is covering the Medicaid expansion 100% up until 2016, at which point the states have to cover 10%. The CBO report (p. 9) even admits that this can be problematic for states. Some states spend a good amount on Medicaid, which can be especially difficult for those already plagued with fiscal issues. Each state will face different incentives on whether 10% is too much or "worth it." There is also the issue of the "woodwork effect," which means that those who previously eligible will now be drawn out due to the publicity that this bill has received.
The health care exchanges and the Medicaid expansion are the two most expensive parts of Obamacare, which is why they have been receiving all this attention in the CBO reports. Neither one of these sub-policies has addressed the issue of neither health care quality nor spiraling health care costs (e.g., all we have done is disincentivized patients to be value-conscious shoppers because "someone else is paying the bill").
However, it does coerce citizens to "buy insurance or pay the tax." The CBO projects that about 4 million will opt for the latter because buying insurance is just too expensive, although enforceability of the tax is tenuous. Obamacare also does come with an array of new taxes. Who would have thought that "health care reform" meant more accountants over at the IRS? Obamacare does add to the federal deficit by $1.17T, which does wonders for our current debt situation. Don't forget adding to the increased dependency on government! Obamacare is also deterring doctors from actually wanting to practice, which is bad for a situation in which the number of doctors isn't growing in comparison to the increased demand (i.e., health care resources are even more scarce and waiting times will be even longer). What could be better for our health care system? And what's even better is that over time, we just find more unintended consequences within Obamacare.
The only thing that this report did for me was increase my hopefulness even more that either Obamacare can be repealed or that a majority of the states can undermine it by refusing to expand their Medicaid programs and build health care exchanges.
In spite of that prematurity, we can still draw general conclusions from what will happen as a result of Obamacare.
The first has to do with the costs itself. Although those on the Left like to point out that the net costs had a downward adjustment of $84 billion, that's because in net terms, a million people are losing their insurance. Obama's promise was that everyone who has insurance will be able to keep it. The last CBO report on Obamacare (p. 4) estimated that there would be a net loss of 3-5 million who are insured by their employers. This report had an upward revision (Table 1; see below) on the effect of those who would receive insurance.
Nevertheless, I have to wonder: the federal government is spending billions of dollars that it doesn't have in order to set up these health care exchanges, and there are still 30 million people without insurance? And here I thought the bill was supposed to provide universal health coverage. I guess that was my mistake.
The price tag is still bothersome and only gets worse each time projections are made. This legislation is still going to cause a net increase of $1.168T (Table 2), which goes against Obama's promised $900B price tag. I don't understand where those on the Left, or even the CBO for that matter, have this idea that this is going to reduce health care costs. How does spending billions on health insurance exchanges with a de facto zero net effect on the uninsured going to save money?
Also, how does expanding a program that is running up costs (Medicaid 2011 Actuarial Report, 2011; p. 15) even faster than Social Security going to help at all? For one, the federal government is covering the Medicaid expansion 100% up until 2016, at which point the states have to cover 10%. The CBO report (p. 9) even admits that this can be problematic for states. Some states spend a good amount on Medicaid, which can be especially difficult for those already plagued with fiscal issues. Each state will face different incentives on whether 10% is too much or "worth it." There is also the issue of the "woodwork effect," which means that those who previously eligible will now be drawn out due to the publicity that this bill has received.
The health care exchanges and the Medicaid expansion are the two most expensive parts of Obamacare, which is why they have been receiving all this attention in the CBO reports. Neither one of these sub-policies has addressed the issue of neither health care quality nor spiraling health care costs (e.g., all we have done is disincentivized patients to be value-conscious shoppers because "someone else is paying the bill").
However, it does coerce citizens to "buy insurance or pay the tax." The CBO projects that about 4 million will opt for the latter because buying insurance is just too expensive, although enforceability of the tax is tenuous. Obamacare also does come with an array of new taxes. Who would have thought that "health care reform" meant more accountants over at the IRS? Obamacare does add to the federal deficit by $1.17T, which does wonders for our current debt situation. Don't forget adding to the increased dependency on government! Obamacare is also deterring doctors from actually wanting to practice, which is bad for a situation in which the number of doctors isn't growing in comparison to the increased demand (i.e., health care resources are even more scarce and waiting times will be even longer). What could be better for our health care system? And what's even better is that over time, we just find more unintended consequences within Obamacare.
The only thing that this report did for me was increase my hopefulness even more that either Obamacare can be repealed or that a majority of the states can undermine it by refusing to expand their Medicaid programs and build health care exchanges.
Tisha B'Av: Remembering the Past to Bring About a Better Future
Tisha B'Av has been one of those holidays where it's really hard to get into "the spirit of things." The primary premise behind the holiday is to remember various catastrophes that have befallen the Jewish people, most importantly the destruction of the First and Second Temples (בית המקדש). Getting sad over a ritual that most Jews, including myself, consider an "ancient relic" makes something like Tisha B'Av seem insipid. What's more is that this mourning process is counterintuitive.
How so? I analogize Tisha B'av to shiva (שבעה), which is the mourning process for the loss of a certain individual. The shiva process is most intense at its beginning and wanes in intensity as time passes. Not so with Tisha B'Av. Depending on your take, it has either intensified or maintained its intensity over the centuries. In either case, it hasn't lessened. Some are of the opinion that there was something wonderful about the days when there was a Temple. Why else would so many blessings in the Amidah be focused on the Temple? On the other hand, is it politically feasible to worry about building the Third Temple, especially when there is a mosque sitting on it? Is the Temple supposed to be more than just a building?
I want to return to my main point, which is we should approach Tisha B'Av much like we approach shiva. As time passes, we move on, we move forward. Even when we are in the intense stages of mourning, we don't say that "they're in a better place;" we honor their memories and remember how they lived. The remembering part is important. We remember the Exodus from Egypt. It happened 3,000 years ago. Yet we still have those biblical passages written on the scrolls of our tefillin. We are reminded it in our prayer books and during the kiddush for Shabbat. We even have a holiday for it: Passover.
Remembering is key. Without it, not only do we repeat history, but we lose our connection to the past. However, invoking memories is insufficient. We also have to honor the loss. Why?
As I pointed out last year, there is still a reason for Jews to lament and observe Tisha B'Av. I would like to now use that as a starting point and figure out how some ways to translate that sorrow into productive action.
For those of you Jews who are of the more religious persuasion, I am sure you will be mourning for the loss of the Temple. However, rather than show despair, we can think of ways to making messianic prophecy more of a reality. If it's in the narrow focus of restoring the Temple, think about making that possible.
Tisha B'Av can be inspiring on a Zionist level, which could either be reading some of the messianic prophecies more broadly or simply being Zionist. Israel is surrounded by enemies hellbent on her destruction, not to mention having to deal with internal quarreling. Israel can use all the help possible. We can work, either as individuals or as organizations, to improve upon the State of Israel, especially for those of us who are living outside of Israel. Donate money to Israel. Buy Israeli bonds. Advocate for Israel, even if it's using social media such as Facebook. By improving Israel, the ascent can be high enough where Israel can return to the "glory days" that are greatly missed by those who feel a sense of nostalgia during Tisha B'Av.
Being able to enact change on a domestic or international level might be too difficult for many, which is why some might look at Tisha B'Av on the individual level. It was the lashon hara and sinat chinam (needless hatred) of many individuals that brought down the Second Temple. Have Tisha B'Av be a day not just for studying Lamentations, but also for studying speech ethics or middot (character traits) such as loving-kindness or generosity. Although it's not bringing about world peace, at least it's about changing the world for those within your sphere of influence.
How so? I analogize Tisha B'av to shiva (שבעה), which is the mourning process for the loss of a certain individual. The shiva process is most intense at its beginning and wanes in intensity as time passes. Not so with Tisha B'Av. Depending on your take, it has either intensified or maintained its intensity over the centuries. In either case, it hasn't lessened. Some are of the opinion that there was something wonderful about the days when there was a Temple. Why else would so many blessings in the Amidah be focused on the Temple? On the other hand, is it politically feasible to worry about building the Third Temple, especially when there is a mosque sitting on it? Is the Temple supposed to be more than just a building?
I want to return to my main point, which is we should approach Tisha B'Av much like we approach shiva. As time passes, we move on, we move forward. Even when we are in the intense stages of mourning, we don't say that "they're in a better place;" we honor their memories and remember how they lived. The remembering part is important. We remember the Exodus from Egypt. It happened 3,000 years ago. Yet we still have those biblical passages written on the scrolls of our tefillin. We are reminded it in our prayer books and during the kiddush for Shabbat. We even have a holiday for it: Passover.
Remembering is key. Without it, not only do we repeat history, but we lose our connection to the past. However, invoking memories is insufficient. We also have to honor the loss. Why?
Talk + No Action = Cheap
Talk + Action = Progress
As I pointed out last year, there is still a reason for Jews to lament and observe Tisha B'Av. I would like to now use that as a starting point and figure out how some ways to translate that sorrow into productive action.
For those of you Jews who are of the more religious persuasion, I am sure you will be mourning for the loss of the Temple. However, rather than show despair, we can think of ways to making messianic prophecy more of a reality. If it's in the narrow focus of restoring the Temple, think about making that possible.
Tisha B'Av can be inspiring on a Zionist level, which could either be reading some of the messianic prophecies more broadly or simply being Zionist. Israel is surrounded by enemies hellbent on her destruction, not to mention having to deal with internal quarreling. Israel can use all the help possible. We can work, either as individuals or as organizations, to improve upon the State of Israel, especially for those of us who are living outside of Israel. Donate money to Israel. Buy Israeli bonds. Advocate for Israel, even if it's using social media such as Facebook. By improving Israel, the ascent can be high enough where Israel can return to the "glory days" that are greatly missed by those who feel a sense of nostalgia during Tisha B'Av.
Being able to enact change on a domestic or international level might be too difficult for many, which is why some might look at Tisha B'Av on the individual level. It was the lashon hara and sinat chinam (needless hatred) of many individuals that brought down the Second Temple. Have Tisha B'Av be a day not just for studying Lamentations, but also for studying speech ethics or middot (character traits) such as loving-kindness or generosity. Although it's not bringing about world peace, at least it's about changing the world for those within your sphere of influence.
No matter how you decide to observe Tisha B'Av this year, may it bring you meaning!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)