This Wall Street Journal article about the challenges faced ex-cons–particularly drug offenders–is excellent. It doesn’t try to be a muckraking piece or a tearjerker; just a good–if somewhat anecdotal–explanation of the problems.
One of the issues it mentions is localities–such as NYC–which bar ex-felons from public housing:
It’s unfortunate that there’s not enough resources to provide subsidized housing to everyone who needs it. But when it comes down to triage, I think it’s perfectly fair to give non-felons preference over felons.
But other restrictions, such as the prohibition on student loans for drug offenders, are simply unconscionable.
Articles like this one just drive me batty, and it’s unfortunate that even smart guys like Matthew Yglesias seem to swallow it.
The article complains that high-deductible insurance plans are a way for employers to ‘cost-shift’ onto employees. The example they give, however, proves exactly why they’re wrong.
Since their premiums are $180 a month, or $2,160 a year, they could find themselves with as much as $7,160 in out-of-pocket healthcare costs in a single year.
On the other hand, the Pungs face much lower monthly premiums than they would have to pay for a traditional plan: between $800 and $1,400 a month for family coverage — at least $9,600 a year in premiums alone.
So, the worst-case scenario under an HSA is $7,160 a year… compared to a guaranteed $9,600 a year with a regular plan.
It makes no economic sense to insure for expected costs. All you’re doing is giving the insurance company the money for them to give back to you, except that they skim off profit before they give it back to you. Expecting to save money by lowering your deductible is nothing but asking for a free lunch.
The article easily found a concerned expert to quote:
But Dr Glied ignores the alternative. If you can’t afford to keep $2,000 in an account, you’re going to have a hell of a hard time paying $9,600 a year for low-deductible insurance.
The biggest obstacle to relying on savings is lack of self-discipline. But that’s exactly where HSAs shine. Because the money is pretax, it’s subject to special IRS rules that only allow it to be used for legitimate medical expenses. So even spendthrifts like me, who can’t manage to save a dime, can still have a nice fat medical savings account, because we’re protected from ourselves.
The real problem is the cost of healthcare, and the fact that it’s simply unaffordable for the bottom 20% or so of the population. But that has nothing to do with HSAs, high-deductible plans, or any other vehicles of payment.
I could be way off base here, but I have a feeling that the news in this article may not be nearly as bad as it sounds:
Audits by Comptroller Alan Hevesi’s office showed that between January 2000 and March 2005, 198 sex offenders in New York received Medicaid-reimbursed Viagra after their convictions. Those included crimes against children as young as 2 years old, he said.
Various politicians, of course, immediately jumped up to denounce this.
Now this is just a theory on my part… but I’m going to guess that a pedophile, like any other fetishist, may have difficulty achieving an erection without their fetish. If so, I would think that Viagra, by enabling these men to have erections anyway, might allow them to have a sex life with adults, and thus be less likely to reoffend.
I could be completely wrong here. But I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that this was a screwup, without first hearing from someone with medical expertise.
I simply cannot understand the logic behind this decision:
The inmate requested clemency or a 90-day delay. I see no reason for granting clemency, but what is the harm in waiting three more months for the punishment of a murder that happened 20 years ago?
The attitude of one of the victim’s relatives is particularly appalling:
In other words, an innocent woman should be deprived of medical help so that a convicted felon can be denied the chance to do a good deed. What sort of sick reasoning is that?
Matt Yglesias points out that the Catholic Church’s position on condoms is logical, given their premises. That is true, and also beside the point. All people’s actions make sense from their internal perspective.
Matt’s ‘ironclad logic’ is that the loss of human life due to HIV is minor compared to the potential for damnation. I grew up in a religion with equally ironclad logic: Jehovah’s Witnesses. I had jaundice as a newborn, and if a blood transfusion had been necessary to save my life, my parents would have rather let me die than accept blood. There’s a term for valuing such logic over human life: it’s called fanaticism.
Matt’s logic would equally well allow for an inquisition to root out heresy. After all, what’s the loss of a few lives if it prevents the damnation of many due to incorrect teaching?
What Matt misses–and people in the comments point out–is that it is possible for a salvation-based religion to be morally reasonable. It’s possible to have a conception of God not as a promulgator of absolute rules, but as an upholder of principles, which must be weighed for the greatest good. Fundamentalism is not the only ‘authentic’ form of religion.
Secularists and non-fundamentalist religions can and should agree in condemning any morality that holds that human suffering should be promoted solely for the sake of an abstract moral precept. And any theology that teaches that God will impose suffering solely for the sake of an abstract moral precept is simply fascistic.
Two back-to-back news articles on the Yahoo News page:
‘Whore College’ Offers Hands-On Training
Chlamydia Outbreak Kills a Dozen Penguins
Both stories are from San Francisco.
Tyler Cowen provides sharp analysis:
In turn, a conservative and libertarian vice is to get too obsessed with “desert.” … Note that conservatism and libertarianism, whatever their major differences may be, tend to share emotional vices. That is why libertarianism remains more of a right-wing than left-wing point of view.
The first point is exactly the reason why I have a hard time with traditional liberals, even when they’re taking positions I agree with. It relates to the topic of constrained vs unconstrained visions. The unconstrained vision–that everything can be taken care of–sounds very appealing until you realize the corollary: that if things aren’t being taken care of, it must be somebody’s fault. So if people can’t afford healthcare, it’s the fault of greedy corporations; if we can’t prevent terrorism in Iraq, it must be the fault of the US Army, etc.
Conversely, conservative vice turns the sensible pragmatism of a constrained vision into an excuse for not caring. It’s political Calvinism, allowing the lucky to believe that their success is due to their own virtue.
Both vices are simply differing varieties of moralism. Tyler says:
But the opposite of moralism is sound consequential analysis, which is not property of any political faction.
The Onion reports on the Bush administration’s disastrous effect on higher education.
[powered by WordPress; 6 queries. 0.098 seconds ]
This is not the site of journalist and author Daniel Glick. His website is at danielglick.net
Sick Transit: A directionless train of thought. Sic transit cogitationes Danis.