Now that the dust has begun to settle from the recent health care debate in Congress, and now that people have had time to examine the language in the legislation that was actually passed (most members of Congress never had time to read all of the final bill before they had to vote on it), some interesting numbers are emerging.
On April 22, the Chief Actuary of the Department of Health and Human Services issued a report on his department's best estimates of the effect of this legislation, touted by the administration to save us all lots of money over the next decade or so. You can read the entire report here.
In summary, his office estimates the legislation will cost about an additional $828 billion through 2019, and save about $577 billion, for a net added cost of about $251 billion. And that assumes all the "cost savings" ideas are actually implemented, including cutting Medicare payments to doctors by 21% - something Congress has yet to do, and is unlikely ever to do.
The report also questions whether any of the legislation will actually reduce health care costs, and suggests that the incentives may actually result in some small employers dropping their health care plans entirely.
So much for the political promises made to get this bill passed........
Friday, April 30, 2010
Recommended: American Power Act
David Brooks wrote a good piece in the April 30, 2010 New York Times: American Power Act. He likens the proposed energy legislation to the Railroad Act of 1862 - an act full of stupid ideas and giveaways to moneyed interests, but that nevertheless resulted eventually in a transcontinental railway that drove American innovation and prosperity for a century.
Just so, he argues, any energy legislation out of Congress will certainly be larded with favors for special interests and stupid ideas, but nevertheless may be the implement to revitalize America in the long term if it eventually results in our becoming the world's energy innovator and leader.
He makes a good point. Anything out of a national political process will of necessity be a messy compromise, and true believers on all sides will carp at it and feel betrayed (think of the recent health bill, for example). Yet in the end it is the long-run effect that matters, not the short-term compromises or the initial stupidities in the legislation that matters.
Just so, he argues, any energy legislation out of Congress will certainly be larded with favors for special interests and stupid ideas, but nevertheless may be the implement to revitalize America in the long term if it eventually results in our becoming the world's energy innovator and leader.
He makes a good point. Anything out of a national political process will of necessity be a messy compromise, and true believers on all sides will carp at it and feel betrayed (think of the recent health bill, for example). Yet in the end it is the long-run effect that matters, not the short-term compromises or the initial stupidities in the legislation that matters.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Recommended: A Church Mary Can Love
Nicholas Kristof has written a good Op Ed piece in the April 18, 2010 Wall Street Journal entitled A Church Mary Can Love. He argues that the Vatican has become an "Old Boys" club, just like Lehman Brothers was, and is equally incompetent and out of touch with the real world, lost in defending medieval dogma. But he argues there is another, much larger, much more vibrant Catholic Church out there doing good things in the world - and that is the real Catholic Church.
An interesting view that mirrors what another Catholic friend told me recently.
An interesting view that mirrors what another Catholic friend told me recently.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
The hubris of brilliance
I have a good friend who is brilliant in his technical area, and in fact has risen to quite senior levels in his field. He has an idea that could revolutionize a major industry and make him millions of dollars. And yet, while someone will almost certainly eventually cash in on this idea and get the credit for it, it probably won’t be he.
The reason is that he is apparently quite unable to see or accept that successfully undertaking the construction of a major project requires political support, a comprehensive business plan, marketing support, a tight management structure, good systems engineering, and a variety of other specialties. He feels that these are minor issues, and in any case he thinks he already has them covered himself. He is seemingly blind to his own limitation.
I’ve pondered why this is, and concluded that the gift of brilliance too often carries with it the curse of hubris. I’ve noticed time and time again that people who are brilliant in one area tend to think they must be equally brilliant in other fields, when in fact they are, if anything, woefully naïve in many of those other fields. Not only that, they tend to assume that their own area of expertise is unusually complex while other fields are much simpler.
Strangely enough, business people usually recognize that scientific fields can be immensely complex, but scientists seldom seem to recognize that business specialties can be equally if not more complex. But of course they are.
I certainly notice this in the physicists who live around me. Physicists too often believe that physics is the most complex field around. I find that ludicrous. Particles transmuting from radioactive decay or accelerator collisions go through at most dozens of steps; yet biochemical pathways in the cell often go through thousands or even tens of thousands of steps. Physical forces can be relied on to always behave in the same way; they don’t behave differently because they were raised in a different culture or because the experimenter reminds them of their despised third-grade teacher, problems that bedevil the social sciences.
But I see it in other fields as well. Doctors are notorious for getting taken in investment scams. Of course they are often wealthy and so obvious targets for such scams, but in addition they seem prone to think that since they have mastered the complexities of medicine, they are equally skilled in picking investments. That delusion, of course, makes them easy prey.
Of course brilliance and wisdom are two different things. The brilliant person knows a great deal about some narrow field. The wise person recognizes that there are many fields, and no one can be competent, let alone brilliant, in more than a very few.
The reason is that he is apparently quite unable to see or accept that successfully undertaking the construction of a major project requires political support, a comprehensive business plan, marketing support, a tight management structure, good systems engineering, and a variety of other specialties. He feels that these are minor issues, and in any case he thinks he already has them covered himself. He is seemingly blind to his own limitation.
I’ve pondered why this is, and concluded that the gift of brilliance too often carries with it the curse of hubris. I’ve noticed time and time again that people who are brilliant in one area tend to think they must be equally brilliant in other fields, when in fact they are, if anything, woefully naïve in many of those other fields. Not only that, they tend to assume that their own area of expertise is unusually complex while other fields are much simpler.
Strangely enough, business people usually recognize that scientific fields can be immensely complex, but scientists seldom seem to recognize that business specialties can be equally if not more complex. But of course they are.
I certainly notice this in the physicists who live around me. Physicists too often believe that physics is the most complex field around. I find that ludicrous. Particles transmuting from radioactive decay or accelerator collisions go through at most dozens of steps; yet biochemical pathways in the cell often go through thousands or even tens of thousands of steps. Physical forces can be relied on to always behave in the same way; they don’t behave differently because they were raised in a different culture or because the experimenter reminds them of their despised third-grade teacher, problems that bedevil the social sciences.
But I see it in other fields as well. Doctors are notorious for getting taken in investment scams. Of course they are often wealthy and so obvious targets for such scams, but in addition they seem prone to think that since they have mastered the complexities of medicine, they are equally skilled in picking investments. That delusion, of course, makes them easy prey.
Of course brilliance and wisdom are two different things. The brilliant person knows a great deal about some narrow field. The wise person recognizes that there are many fields, and no one can be competent, let alone brilliant, in more than a very few.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Recommended: The Descent of Liberalism
Michael Beran has written a long but fascinating piece in a recent issue of National Review, called The Descent of Liberalism. In it he discusses the historical antagonism between the "classical liberalism" of the nation's founders, and the later "social liberalism", and argues that "social liberalism" has come to dominate the liberal wing of political thought.
Well worth reading and thinking about.
Well worth reading and thinking about.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Recommended: The Ecstacy of Fiscal Policy
I really like David Brook's sense of humor. The first paragraph of his recent piece The Ecstasy of Fiscal Policy in the New York Times kept me chuckling off and on for hours. The rest of the article is good too, but the first paragraph set the tone, at least for those of us following the recent peccadilloes of the Republican National Committee.
Recommended: This Time We Really Mean It
I recommend Thomas Friedman's March 31 Op Ed article in The New York Times, entitled This Time We really Mean It. President Obama didn't have any good options in Afghanistan when he last decided our policy there, but one wonders if in fact we ought not to just cut our losses (declare victory and withdraw) and write off Afghanistan. Re my last post, this may well be a nation we simply can't "save" (whatever "save" means to us in this case), whatever we do and however much money we spend and however many troops we send.
International Triage
As we continue to pour trillions of dollars into Afghanistan, run by a corrupt government of questionable legitimacy after an apparently fraudulent election, and trillions more into Iraq, where the Sunni and Shia political factions still regularly murder each other, and trillions more into Africa and Haiti and a number of other third world nations which have already absorbed our money for decades with little or no evident progress, I begin to wonder if we ought not to apply some hard-headed triage to our aid money and military involvement.
Triage is the concept of putting limited resources where they will do the most good. On the battlefield, triage means ignoring those who will certainly die, and also those who will recover without help, and putting what resources are available towards those who could be saved with help.
In the international arena, there are, quite frankly, nations who cannot be helped – whose circumstances and/or cultures and/or religions are simply too inflexible to be adapted to a modern world. I know it goes against the grain – especially for liberal Americans - to write any nation off, to admit that any nation or peoples are beyond help, but it is so nevertheless. Or perhaps more accurately, some nations are beyond OUR ability to save them – if they are saved or modernized it will only be because they save or modernize themselves. Afghanistan and Iraq and Haiti almost certainly fall into this category, despite international efforts to prop them up.
In a world with unlimited resources, we could help everybody. We don’t have unlimited resources, so we would do well to be more selective in our aid. And in fact, we would do well to give help closer to home before spending trillion abroad. Our own national infrastructure is crumbling, our own schools are substandard, our own manufacturing capability has been gutted, our own national finances are in shambles, our own drug problems are out of hand. It is, frankly, an act of insufferable and patronizing arrogance for us to lecture other nations and other cultures on how they ought to change when we ourselves are in such need of reform at home.
Triage is the concept of putting limited resources where they will do the most good. On the battlefield, triage means ignoring those who will certainly die, and also those who will recover without help, and putting what resources are available towards those who could be saved with help.
In the international arena, there are, quite frankly, nations who cannot be helped – whose circumstances and/or cultures and/or religions are simply too inflexible to be adapted to a modern world. I know it goes against the grain – especially for liberal Americans - to write any nation off, to admit that any nation or peoples are beyond help, but it is so nevertheless. Or perhaps more accurately, some nations are beyond OUR ability to save them – if they are saved or modernized it will only be because they save or modernize themselves. Afghanistan and Iraq and Haiti almost certainly fall into this category, despite international efforts to prop them up.
In a world with unlimited resources, we could help everybody. We don’t have unlimited resources, so we would do well to be more selective in our aid. And in fact, we would do well to give help closer to home before spending trillion abroad. Our own national infrastructure is crumbling, our own schools are substandard, our own manufacturing capability has been gutted, our own national finances are in shambles, our own drug problems are out of hand. It is, frankly, an act of insufferable and patronizing arrogance for us to lecture other nations and other cultures on how they ought to change when we ourselves are in such need of reform at home.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
The vow of silence
In 1962 the Vatican issued a secret letter of instruction to all Cardinals and Bishops. under the seal of Pope John XXIII, on how to handle accusations of "solicitation" (sexual misconduct) against Catholic clergy. The letter was published by the British press in 1993, and a copy of the original letter can be read here. The original 1993 Guardian newspaper article about the letter can be read here. Note that lawyers for the Curia do not deny that this letter was written, nor did they deny that the published copy was authentic, though they tried at the time of its publication to argue that it was taken out of context. In 2001 the Curia sent an additional letter to all Catholic Bishops reminding them that the 1962 letter was still in force. That letter was signed by then-Cardinal Ratzinger, the current Pope.
The key paragraphs are outlined in blue. In essence they enjoin everyone involved in such cases - accusers, witnesses, victims, judges - to take vows of perpetual silence under pain of excommunication. It seems to me that is pretty conclusive proof of an organized conspiracy to hide criminal behavior -- remember, sexually molesting underage children is a serious criminal offense. Enjoining everyone, including victims, to silence effectively prevents anyone from reporting the matter to the police for criminal prosecution.
The key paragraphs are outlined in blue. In essence they enjoin everyone involved in such cases - accusers, witnesses, victims, judges - to take vows of perpetual silence under pain of excommunication. It seems to me that is pretty conclusive proof of an organized conspiracy to hide criminal behavior -- remember, sexually molesting underage children is a serious criminal offense. Enjoining everyone, including victims, to silence effectively prevents anyone from reporting the matter to the police for criminal prosecution.
The worlds worst PR firm
As one commentator noted this morning, in the wake of yesterday's comparison with the Jews, if the Vatican had hired the best PR firm in the world to design the worst possible PR campaign, they couldn't have done as well as the Vatican itself seems to be doing. One can only speculate that the Vatican hierarchy is so far removed from real life and so insulated and isolated from public opinion that they have no idea how badly their efforts look to the rest of the world.
Meanwhile, I see that Germany opened a telephone hot line for such abuse cases yesterday or the day before, and had to close it at the end of the first day when over 4000 calls absolutely swamped the system. A friend of mine who should know (she was once a nun herself) tells me that what has come out so far is just the tip of the iceberg, and that the abuse of trust goes far beyond young children.
Perhaps the Vatican will finally realize that it has to come clean and dispense real justice. (As the British used to say, justice must not only be done, it must be SEEN to be done). If not, the Catholic Church, already losing members and clergy at an alarming rate, will continue to bleed supporters.
Meanwhile, I see that Germany opened a telephone hot line for such abuse cases yesterday or the day before, and had to close it at the end of the first day when over 4000 calls absolutely swamped the system. A friend of mine who should know (she was once a nun herself) tells me that what has come out so far is just the tip of the iceberg, and that the abuse of trust goes far beyond young children.
Perhaps the Vatican will finally realize that it has to come clean and dispense real justice. (As the British used to say, justice must not only be done, it must be SEEN to be done). If not, the Catholic Church, already losing members and clergy at an alarming rate, will continue to bleed supporters.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Desperate days
Today in his Good Friday address, the Pope's personal preacher, the Rev Raniero Cantalamessa, compared the worldwide furor over abuse of children by Catholic priests to anti-Semitic attacks on Jews. That's a pretty far-fetched comparison, but it does show (a) how desperate the Vatican is becoming, and (b) how the Vatican hierarchy still doesn't get it.
Vatican spokesman have tried to argue that then-Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) acted aggressively against pedophile priests when he was Prefect (head) of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Unfortunately recent revelations suggest otherwise, as in the case of Rev. Lawrence Murphy, a Wisconsin priest who molested as many as 200 deaf boys.
More to the point, the Vatican has yet to discipline any Bishop or Cardinal who was involved in the cover-ups. For example Boston Cardinal Bernard Francis Law resigned in disgrace in 2002 for his part in a pedophile cover-up, but was subsequently given a spacious apartment and a prestigious post in Rome as archpriest of the Basilica of St. Mary Major. Hardly a punishment for what he did. Clearly the hierarchy is intent on protecting its own. Those of you who like research will have no trouble finding more cases like his in the past few years.
Media exposures of these abuses and cover-ups hardly seems to me to qualify as equivalent to anti-Semitic attacks. Indeed, it looks to me like fully justified outrage at criminal and highly immoral behavior with our children, and the subsequent cover-ups.
Vatican spokesman have tried to argue that then-Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) acted aggressively against pedophile priests when he was Prefect (head) of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Unfortunately recent revelations suggest otherwise, as in the case of Rev. Lawrence Murphy, a Wisconsin priest who molested as many as 200 deaf boys.
More to the point, the Vatican has yet to discipline any Bishop or Cardinal who was involved in the cover-ups. For example Boston Cardinal Bernard Francis Law resigned in disgrace in 2002 for his part in a pedophile cover-up, but was subsequently given a spacious apartment and a prestigious post in Rome as archpriest of the Basilica of St. Mary Major. Hardly a punishment for what he did. Clearly the hierarchy is intent on protecting its own. Those of you who like research will have no trouble finding more cases like his in the past few years.
Media exposures of these abuses and cover-ups hardly seems to me to qualify as equivalent to anti-Semitic attacks. Indeed, it looks to me like fully justified outrage at criminal and highly immoral behavior with our children, and the subsequent cover-ups.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
