« Why are Americans more risk averse about medicine than Europeans? | Main | How to improve basketball »
Assorted links
1. The cognitive benefits of dyslexia.
2. Free up bone marrow markets!
3. What's the most widely distributed, pro-poor product in the Third World? Other than food, of course.
4. The composer John Adams has a blog.
5. What kind of precedent is set by "opt out"?
6. Steve Landsburg blogs his new book.Posted by Tyler Cowen on October 29, 2009 at 11:35 AM in Web/Tech | Permalink
Comments
Did you read #5?
Let me summarize it for you:
1) 'Opt-out' has issues that need to be resolved
2) 'Opt-out' will lead to more federalism
3) Federalism is bad (evidence? discussion? argument?)
4) Therefore, 'Opt-out' is bad.
Less articles like that, please.
Posted by: M. Dutton at Oct 29, 2009 12:29:46 PM
Wow! I actually guessed on #3 and got it right with the second of my two guesses.
Posted by: Yancey Ward at Oct 29, 2009 12:49:43 PM
The opt out is a charade. If opponents of healthcare reform fall for it, they have only themselves to blame.
Posted by: Yancey Ward at Oct 29, 2009 12:55:33 PM
Is it going to be kinda like you can opt out of highway funding by not harassing your citizen drivers?
Posted by: Andrew at Oct 29, 2009 3:05:45 PM
This quote from the optout article is hilarious because Northern States have sent hundreds of billions of dollars to southern states over the last several decades.
"But what about the tax revenue that would have gone to subsidize uninsured residents of that state through a public option? Will that money in exiting states go to private insurance companies?"
As though this hasn't been happening for decades. Maybe for once these southern states can try to support themselves rather than live off the federal teat.
It is particularly bad because if you compare per state GNP and the amount of net federal revenues received by each state, you will find that for states like Mississippi, 13% of their state GDP is U.S government spending. In 2004, Mississippi received $3,800 more per resident than it paid in taxes, while per capita GSP was only $29,500
Without the federal government, most southern states would be 10% poorer than they are already.
Posted by: Mike S at Oct 29, 2009 3:11:29 PM
Oh good, this argument again.
Posted by: Vernunft at Oct 29, 2009 4:52:02 PM
Steve Landsburg sounds like a crank:
God is unnecessary not because complex things require simple antecedents but because they don’t. That allows the natural numbers to exist with no antecedents at all—and once they exist, all hell (or more precisely all existence) breaks loose: In The Big Questions I’ve explained why I believe the entire Universe is, in a sense, made of mathematics.
Posted by: lemmy caution at Oct 29, 2009 5:11:07 PM
Man, now I'm hungry for marble cake...
Posted by: Obs at Oct 29, 2009 6:49:48 PM
@Mike S, this is exactly why many people recoil from these types of policies. You make people subservient to the state: not only dependent on it to continue their lifestyle, but beholden to follow the state's policies otherwise they are hypocrites, un-American, etc. You don't allow people to fail, and then shove it in their face at every turn.
We'll help you out, but you better repay it with votes and support.
Posted by: forager at Oct 29, 2009 11:35:59 PM
I was dyslexic as a kid, and can concur with the paper's observations.
Posted by: Joshua Allen at Oct 30, 2009 1:31:22 PM
