Health Care - Minor Points

Debates over health care tend to suffer from an extreme example of what are usually called “repugnant markets.” This type of conversation is characterized by a suspension of rationality due to the inherent distastefulness of the topic; we are loathe to discuss selling organs or babies, for example, regardless of whether such transactions are beneficial to both parties. In health care specifically, I often hear the somewhat nebulous concept of a “right to life” invoked, promoting the view that all people have an inherent right to whatever care they need to survive.

I would like to list a couple factual points which, in my view, cannot be rationally disagreed with.

1.       There will almost always be some procedure, drug, or treatment which has the potential to extend life.

2.       These procedures, drugs, and treatments cost money, often a lot of it.

3.       We are not wealthy enough to provide an arbitrary amount of procedures, drugs, or treatments to everyone who wants them.

These three points mean that we need some form of allocation, whether what we typically call “free markets” (resources allocated to those who are willing/able to pay for them), “rationing” (resources allocated equally to everyone), or …I do not know the word for it, but (resources allocated according to perceived need). Perhaps that is considered some subset of rationing. Combinations of these are also possible, but what is absolutely not possible is for everyone to get whatever resources they want.

Some people who want things cannot have them. Trying to inject morality into the conversation at this stage is completely pointless, whether we are talking about health care or potatoes or shoes. Arguing that we all have a right to whatever treatment we want is no better than arguing that we all have a right to fly private jets; it sounds pretty nice, but it’s simply not possible to do. Morality and “rights” have no bearing on the impossible.

Anyone who goes around touting the “right to life” is not standing on their principles as I suspect they want you to believe; they are simply not being serious. I contend that as a result, they should not be taken seriously.

Uncertainty

One of the principal reasons that I have not blogged in such a long time is that I believe my level of certainty regarding the topics I normally feel compelled to discuss has decreased over time. I am not certain (HA!) what has been the cause of this transition, but one event that I believe has at the very least served to crystallize my increased uncertainty came out of the candidacy of Herman Cain. You may remember him as one of the more ridiculous offerings the Republican Party served up during the primaries. Cain said two things that have really stuck with me since he left the race:

1. Nine! Nine! Nine!
2. I don't have the facts to back this up, but...

The first, of course, is his economic plan, which I am sure his campaign manager is glad I remember. The second is the preface to some opinions Cain went on to express regarding Occupy Wall Street which are not particularly important at the moment. The comment was featured on The Daily Show (which I regularly watch) and was popular on Twitter for a time.

More importantly for me, however, it has stuck in my mind, and I found that whenever I would begin a post (recently, primarily on political or economic issues), I would find myself inserting it rather snidely into the text at various points throughout. It isn't odd for me to insert snide comments parenthetically, but what is odd is that the target of these jabs was, of course, me. I would read over a few paragraphs and find that I had actually been insulting myself throughout. As a result, I would begin fairly substantial drafts, read over them and realize the reality is much more nuanced or I had little empirical evidence for a position, try to insert sufficient caveats to address the nuance, and then realize that the sum total of argument plus caveats was essentially zero. I wasn't really saying anything useful, and the posts would become prohibitively lengthy as I tried to address more and more nuance - so I would just delete the draft.

I still believe that the answers exist (although I don't have the facts to back that up either), and I hope that I will figure out what they are, but it is interesting (and more than a little daunting) how difficult and complicated that process can be. Perhaps I will find a more useful way to discuss interesting issues in light of nuance - or perhaps I will continue deleting drafts. I already have more draft posts than published posts, so I suppose that does not bode well.

Consultant Fee Please!

The Maine GOP has recently uncovered some embarrassing information regarding Maine State Senate candidate Colleen Lachowicz. As a Maine native, I am deeply concerned by the information the GOP has uncovered concerning Mrs. Lachowicz’s gaming habits. However, although I commend the GOP’s investigative unit for uncovering these harrowing truths, I believe their flyer only scratches the surface. My additional research has revealed a great deficiency of hard work, attention to detail, and commitment. Here is just a sampling of what I have discovered:

·    Mrs. Lachowicz’s character Santiaga is outfitted almost entirely in blue gear, only 5 pieces of which are Heroic. It is well known that regular and even Heroic dungeons are extremely easy, and had Mrs. Lachowicz been a team player, she would be helping her guild progress through raids and would have obtained a significant number of epics. Additionally, with the advent of Raid Finder and associated “welfare epics,” purple gear can be obtained even without significant teamwork, provided one is willing to invest a nominal amount of time. Mrs. Lachowicz has failed to do so.

·    Mrs. Lachowicz has flagrantly violated accepted industry standard with regards to proper gemming and enchanting. Notice, most egregiously, that she has no gem in her belt. Belt sockets and additional gems can be obtained from your local Blacksmith and Jewelcrafter for a nominal fee and there is no excuse for this oversight. She has also socketed in several places for subpar socket bonuses, when it has been known for years that gemming for straight Agility is flatly superior in almost all cases. This could have been forgiven had she been attempting to satisfy her meta requirement, but as she has failed even to obtain a helm with a meta gem socket, this is not an acceptable excuse. Finally, observe the weapon enchants: double Hurricane is an option only if you lack the dedication to obtain enough gold for double Landslide. With enchants/gems like this, she was probably specced into Vigor before the expansion hit – although the records proving this are conveniently no longer publicly available.

·    Mrs. Lachowicz is wearing a Darkmoon card. Research has conclusively shown that people who use Darkmoon cards have higher rates of unemployment and lower average levels of college achievement.

·     She has completed the achievement “To All the Squirrels I’ve Loved Before.” This achievement requires repeated acts of bestiality to complete, and if that were not enough for a full indictment of Mrs. Lachowicz’s moral fiber, she has also completed the follow-up achievement “To All the Squirrels Who Shared My Life,” which requires additional acts of bestiality on such animals as Mountain Skunks, Scalawag Frogs, and Borean Marmots. We can only be thankful that she has not yet moved on to “To All the Squirrels I Once Caressed”; Malayan Quillrat, you are safe – for now.

·    Her guild name, Wreck List, is super lame.

All of these findings cast serious doubt on her fitness to serve in the state government. Ask yourself: when your guild is on General Vezax, would you trust a rogue with no belt gem to land the interrupt on Searing Flames – not just the first cast, but every other cast, depending of course on your group composition and whether you were attempting the encounter on 10- or 25-man mode? Would you let your children into her raid group, knowing full well that she wears a Darkmoon card in open view of the public?

I know where I stand. Do you?

Update: Stephen Colbert comments.

Tabula Rasa

Like Mitt Romney, I believe that from time to time it is profitable to shed your affliations with your past in order to more readily mesh with the future. I have therefore created a new blog to fit my new persona. The things which outrage me these days vary slightly from what outraged me three years ago, so I expect there will be a small shift in content as well.

Also, I forgot my password.