Healthcare, If Any?

According to a report issued by a House committee bssed on data provided by a consortium of insurers, healthcare costs will increase dramatically under Obamacare -- by 100 to 400%:

Internal cost estimates from 17 of the nation's largest insurance companies indicate that health insurance premiums will grow an average of 100 percent under Obamacare, and that some will soar more than 400 percent, crushing the administration's goal of affordability.

I...don't believe this.   Oil from a turnip, anyone?

People won't spend money they don't have.  They can't.  It's one of those quirky aspects of accounting.  Costs imposed on insurers are certainly relevant, but this analysis seems crude to me.

Quality will probably fall, waiting times will probably increase, etc.  But I do not think prices can rise much.

And wouldn't it surprise everyone if they fell?

Open Letter From Texas

Dear Wealthy Californians --

On behalf of those people of Texas who still retain a modicum of common sense, by which I mean all of us except for Governor Perry, I would like to rescind the offer which he has so graciously but injudiciously extended to you. You see, the whole thing is a really, really bad idea. I'm not sure what my governor is thinking, or even if he is even capable of actual thought in light of his horrendously bad suggestion.

Over the years, I have met many Californians who have moved here to Texas, usually for a job, which they were apparently incapable of finding in their home state. Invariably, they have taken it upon themselves to inform me just how awful Texas is, and how much better it would be if Texas were more like California. In that respect, they have a great deal in common with the Mexicans I meet here. The irony of their position does not seem to dawn on them, but never mind, that is another subject for another time.

Much as it pains me to say this, their complaints are largely correct. Texas is full of very ignorant people. For example, there are still people here who think homosex is wrong, even when done in public, and wouldn't have the slightest clue how to properly accessorize S&M apparel.

We don't, in general, embrace the enlightened ideals of government which you favor, such as enormous tax burdens and deficit spending to fund important public initiatives like sex change operations and massive welfare spending. People here tend to think that spending more than you take in is generally a bad idea anyway, but worse if you happen to be a government. I may know as well as you that, although your present difficulty centers around a few accounting quirks in making this particular strategy work for you, nevertheless I'm confident you'll figure them out at some point. But here in our backwards state, that kind of thing is looked down on, and it is not generally believed that you can get around things like arithmetic.

In general, I'm not a big government kind of guy, either, but in this case I do think I could get behind what I see as the only real solution to the 'California conundrum.' I propose that the Army Corps of Engineers dig a large moat around California, and fill it with radioactive waste. And pirannhas. And maybe land-mine the western half of Nevada.

Because, you see, the problem with California as it seems to me is that there is just not enough commitment to its ideals. People embrace these kinds of innovative ideas, but then as soon as things start getting exciting, and the results of all these great plans start coming to fruition, they get all weak-kneed and want to bail out. How can anybody really accomplish anything great if he loses his nerve just when things start to get a little sketchy? No -- California and her people need to ride this train clear to the station, and I and I believe other Texans, and probably people from many other states, are fully committed to helping motivate Californians and steel their jittery nerves at this time of indecision to see things through to the end.

But coming to Texas is just a stupid idea. What, really, does Texas have to offer? It won't accomplish anything. You won't like it here, and we won't like you being here.

Seriously, don't come.



Truly and Sincerely Yours,

Texas

P.S.  OK, you're right.  The real reason I don't want you here is that I'm not so keen on the idea of bringing into my state a whole bunch of people who have managed to utterly ruin what otherwise sounds like a really wonderful place.  Texas isn't perfect, it has its own problems certainly, even some major ones, but one thing we sure don't need is a massive influx of foolishness.

And we don't really need your money, either.  Have you considered Florida?  Or maybe Virginia or New Hampshire?  They sound pretty nice.

Tex-Mex Egg Salad

I made a different version of my standard egg salad today and since I'm such a creative, inspired person I decided to call it Tex-Mex Egg Salad. I threw in some random stuff that I happened to have around, namely:

• Hard-cooked eggs
• Mayo
• Lime juice
• Fresh cilantro
• Dried oregano
• Cumin
• Queso blanco.

I was pleasantly surprised at how well it turned out, so I snapped a pic with my phone and decided to share. 

You're welcome.

Towards a Rational Gun Policy

Gene Callahan has suggested (as has Fran) that any debate over proper gun policy would best be done rationally and without reference to emotional arguments. I concur, and though I am very much pro-gun, I would even extend it (as Gene suggests) to attempting a non-ideological argument to determine more exactly what a 'realistically ideal' policy would look like.

What do I mean by non-ideological and 'realistically ideal'? What I meant in the last several posts -- resisting the impulse to assert an abstraction of reality as reality itself, or to construct a set of rules which flow from a direct translation of the abstract even when it flies in the face of reality. By this, I certainly do not mean thinking as a political moderate, especially as I see the facts of the matter very much in favor of something close to present policies, though perhaps somewhat more lax.

WWPD?

To begin, I turn to a suggestion by Plato, which I think is eminently helpful, as would anyone who had spent a substantial amount of time wading through arguments attempting to divine (or obscure...) the 'original intent' of law.

Plato thought that an ideal law should consist of two parts -- a clear statement of the purpose of the law, followed by the concrete legal stricture itself. This structure makes very clear the intent and purpose of the law, so that any later reading and interpretation would be greatly facilitated and much less controversial, as would determining whether or not the law had been a plain failure in securing its purpose and needed to be altered or abolished.

Oh, had only the Framers followed this advice!

Technologies That Will Change Everything

Every now and then, a technology comes along and changes things so radically that it disrupts whole economic structures and ways of life.  No doubt, just about anyone can name quite a few of these off the top of his head -- the internal combustion engine, the printing press, the computer, etc.

Here are three technologies which I think are on the cusp of doing just that.