http://jezebel.com/5406933/matchpoint?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+jezebel%2Ffull+(Jezebel)&utm_content=Google+Reader
This is probably the first news item I've seen on Sudan that isn't about genocide. As we question our involvement or lack thereof in Darfur, i think it's an important reminder of what is at stake.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Douthat Again
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/opinion/02douthatsub.html
The gist of his article: Third party candidacy is good at the local level. Among his points: Doug Hoffman did a huge favor for NY-23 by holding left-drifting Republicans accountable.
But the symbolism of Hoffman's candidacy reinforces the socially conservative far-right litmus test of Republican candidates...to be a true Repub, now you have to fall in line with Sarah Palin? NY-23 is a moderately conservative district, and in the end there was no moderately conservative candidate to choose from. Maybe the message got out that you can't be too left or too right to win a seat as a Republican candidate, but it ended up costing them reprentation in Congress.
For someone who writes about the joys of 3rd party candidacy, way to not mention VT except to reference Dean's presidential campaign. We have a 3rd party Senator and consistently have Independents running for Governor, which actually hasn't worked out too well for us imo.
The gist of his article: Third party candidacy is good at the local level. Among his points: Doug Hoffman did a huge favor for NY-23 by holding left-drifting Republicans accountable.
But the symbolism of Hoffman's candidacy reinforces the socially conservative far-right litmus test of Republican candidates...to be a true Repub, now you have to fall in line with Sarah Palin? NY-23 is a moderately conservative district, and in the end there was no moderately conservative candidate to choose from. Maybe the message got out that you can't be too left or too right to win a seat as a Republican candidate, but it ended up costing them reprentation in Congress.
For someone who writes about the joys of 3rd party candidacy, way to not mention VT except to reference Dean's presidential campaign. We have a 3rd party Senator and consistently have Independents running for Governor, which actually hasn't worked out too well for us imo.
A Response to an Article my Father Sent Me
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/03/AR2009110302625.html
I think Mr. Gerson's idea of balance is right, and I don't think that transferring some of the cost of caring for older Americans to younger Americans is a bad thing. For one, it's hard to apply a statistic to an individual. Statistically, young people cost the health care system less than old people. But you never know if you're going to be one of the young people who costs the system more. That's what insurance does--you pay just in case that person is you. The risk may be less, so maybe you pay less, but you can't say that every young person costs less than every old person and therefore all young people should pay less. Also, the health of older Americans is not just a moral issue but a public good as well. Is it a stretch to say that most young Americans have a higher quality of life because their parents live longer and have access to elder care? ;) As for us needing the system when we get older, I know some people would rather shift to a mandatory HSA system so that we are paying for our own care in old age rather than relying on medicare, but for most people the net effect is probably the same as paying into medicare, and for the people who would be responsible and save more in their HSA, in some way it's at the expense of people who simply don't have the resources to contribute to an HSA.
I think Mr. Gerson's idea of balance is right, and I don't think that transferring some of the cost of caring for older Americans to younger Americans is a bad thing. For one, it's hard to apply a statistic to an individual. Statistically, young people cost the health care system less than old people. But you never know if you're going to be one of the young people who costs the system more. That's what insurance does--you pay just in case that person is you. The risk may be less, so maybe you pay less, but you can't say that every young person costs less than every old person and therefore all young people should pay less. Also, the health of older Americans is not just a moral issue but a public good as well. Is it a stretch to say that most young Americans have a higher quality of life because their parents live longer and have access to elder care? ;) As for us needing the system when we get older, I know some people would rather shift to a mandatory HSA system so that we are paying for our own care in old age rather than relying on medicare, but for most people the net effect is probably the same as paying into medicare, and for the people who would be responsible and save more in their HSA, in some way it's at the expense of people who simply don't have the resources to contribute to an HSA.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)