Washington Post business writer Steven Pearlstein, hardly a flaming liberal, has a breathtakingly honest piece about health care reform today.
Question: Do the Democratic plans involve a government takeover of health care?
Answer: "There are lots of valid criticisms that can be made against the health reform plans moving through Congress -- I've made a few myself. But there is no credible way to look at what has been proposed by the president or any congressional committee and conclude that these will result in a government takeover of the health-care system. That is a flat-out lie whose only purpose is to scare the public and stop political conversation. Under any plan likely to emerge from Congress, the vast majority of Americans who are not old or poor will continue to buy health insurance from private companies, continue to get their health care from doctors in private practice and continue to be treated at privately owned hospitals."
Question: So what do the Democratic plans entail?
Answer: "The centerpiece of all the plans is a new health insurance exchange set up by the government where individuals, small businesses and eventually larger businesses will be able to purchase insurance from private insurers at lower rates than are now generally available under rules that require insurers to offer coverage to anyone regardless of health condition. Low-income workers buying insurance through the exchange -- along with their employers -- would be eligible for government subsidies. While the government will take a more active role in regulating the insurance market and increase its spending for health care, that hardly amounts to the kind of government-run system that critics conjure up when they trot out that oh-so-clever line about the Department of Motor Vehicles being in charge of your colonoscopy."
Question: Won't health care reform cost a trillion dollars?
"Another lie. First of all, that's not a trillion every year, as most people assume -- it's a trillion over 10 years, which is the silly way that people in Washington talk about federal budgets. On an annual basis, that translates to about $140 billion, when things are up and running.
Even that, however, grossly overstates the net cost to the government of providing universal coverage. Other parts of the reform plan would result in offsetting savings for Medicare: reductions in unnecessary subsidies to private insurers, in annual increases in payments rates for doctors and in payments to hospitals for providing free care to the uninsured. The net increase in government spending for health care would likely be about $100 billion a year, a one-time increase equal to less than 1 percent of a national income that grows at an average rate of 2.5 percent every year."
Question: But don't the Republicans want to save costs?
Answer: "The Republican lies about the economics of health reform are also heavily laced with hypocrisy. While holding themselves out as paragons of fiscal rectitude, Republicans grandstand against just about every idea to reduce the amount of health care people consume or the prices paid to health-care providers -- the only two ways I can think of to credibly bring health spending under control.
When Democrats, for example, propose to fund research to give doctors, patients and health plans better information on what works and what doesn't, Republicans sense a sinister plot to have the government decide what treatments you will get. By the same wacko-logic, a proposal that Medicare pay for counseling on end-of-life care is transformed into a secret plan for mass euthanasia of the elderly. Government negotiation on drug prices? The end of medical innovation as we know it. ... Reduce Medicare payments to overpriced specialists and inefficient hospitals? The first step on the slippery slope toward rationing."
Question: Who is being honest in this debate?
Answer: "The recent attacks by Republican leaders and their ideological fellow-travelers on the effort to reform the health-care system have been so misleading, so disingenuous, that they could only spring from a cynical effort to gain partisan political advantage. By poisoning the political well, they've given up any pretense of being the loyal opposition..."
Question: So, what is at stake in this debate?
Answer: "Health reform is a test of whether this country can function once again as a civil society -- whether we can trust ourselves to embrace the big, important changes that require everyone to give up something in order to make everyone better off. Republican leaders are eager to see us fail that test. We need to show them that no matter how many lies they tell or how many scare tactics they concoct, Americans will come together and get this done."
Friday, August 07, 2009
Friday, July 31, 2009
Cruel Paradoxes of Parenting [Bryan]
Parenting is full of contradictions. On the one hand, you want your children to grow up, becoming more independent, maturing, developing their personalities, their confidence growing and horizons expanding, testing themselves against the world. On the other hand, you treasure those little hands, those eyes who see in you ultimate wisdom and protection, who see you as ultimate playmate, who beam with joy and laughter when you come home from work. I have never known a relationship as intimate as I have with my children. I have watched them every step of their lives, and there is little, if anything, I don't know about them.
And yet, this will all change. And it is my job to make it change, to turn my little ones into people that I might only see once or twice or year (as I see my parents), or talk to on the telephone every now and then. In some ways, I can't wait for them to grow up; in other ways, I can't imagine anything more dreadful.
And Michael Gerson writes today, "So this is the independence we seek for our children -- to turn our closest relationships into acquaintances. Of course, I knew this getting into parenthood. But the reality remains shocking. For a time, small hands take your own -- children look upward, and you fill their entire universe. They remain, to you, the most important things in the world. To them, over time, you become one important thing among many. And then an occasional visit or phone call. And then a memory, fond or otherwise."
And yet, this will all change. And it is my job to make it change, to turn my little ones into people that I might only see once or twice or year (as I see my parents), or talk to on the telephone every now and then. In some ways, I can't wait for them to grow up; in other ways, I can't imagine anything more dreadful.
And Michael Gerson writes today, "So this is the independence we seek for our children -- to turn our closest relationships into acquaintances. Of course, I knew this getting into parenthood. But the reality remains shocking. For a time, small hands take your own -- children look upward, and you fill their entire universe. They remain, to you, the most important things in the world. To them, over time, you become one important thing among many. And then an occasional visit or phone call. And then a memory, fond or otherwise."
Krugman on Health Care Nonsense [Bryan]
More health care blogging today.
Paul Krugman has an excellent column today in the New York Times. He begins with an amusing anecdote about a man who recently exclaimed during a recent town hall meeting: "Keep your government hands off my Medicare." Not only is this quote funny (Medicare is, of course, a government program), but it is also instructive. People simply don't know how health care works in this country. Americans covered by Medicare generally report being more satisfied with their coverage than do people covered by private insurance; however, they often don't think of Medicare in terms of a government program. It is, in fact, America's best example of "single payer," socialized medicine. In short, people love "socialized" medicine, but don't know it. The same goes for other government interventions. Krugman argues:
Paul Krugman has an excellent column today in the New York Times. He begins with an amusing anecdote about a man who recently exclaimed during a recent town hall meeting: "Keep your government hands off my Medicare." Not only is this quote funny (Medicare is, of course, a government program), but it is also instructive. People simply don't know how health care works in this country. Americans covered by Medicare generally report being more satisfied with their coverage than do people covered by private insurance; however, they often don't think of Medicare in terms of a government program. It is, in fact, America's best example of "single payer," socialized medicine. In short, people love "socialized" medicine, but don't know it. The same goes for other government interventions. Krugman argues:
Yet private markets for health insurance, left to their own devices, work very badly: insurers deny as many claims as possible, and they also try to avoid covering people who are likely to need care. Horror stories are legion....
And in their efforts to avoid “medical losses,” the industry term for paying medical bills, insurers spend much of the money taken in through premiums not on medical treatment, but on “underwriting” — screening out people likely to make insurance claims. In the individual insurance market, where people buy insurance directly rather than getting it through their employers, so much money goes into underwriting and other expenses that only around 70 cents of each premium dollar actually goes to care.
Still, most Americans do have health insurance, and are reasonably satisfied with it. How is that possible, when insurance markets work so badly? The answer is government intervention.
Most obviously, the government directly provides insurance via Medicare and other programs. Before Medicare was established, more than 40 percent of elderly Americans lacked any kind of health insurance. Today, Medicare — which is, by the way, one of those “single payer” systems conservatives love to demonize — covers everyone 65 and older....
Still, most Americans under 65 do have some form of private insurance. The vast majority, however, don’t buy it directly: they get it through their employers. There’s a big tax advantage to doing it that way, since employer contributions to health care aren’t considered taxable income. But to get that tax advantage employers have to follow a number of rules; roughly speaking, they can’t discriminate based on pre-existing medical conditions or restrict benefits to highly paid employees.
And it’s thanks to these rules that employment-based insurance more or less works, at least in the sense that horror stories are a lot less common than they are in the individual insurance market.
So here’s the bottom line: if you currently have decent health insurance, thank the government. It’s true that if you’re young and healthy, with nothing in your medical history that could possibly have raised red flags with corporate accountants, you might have been able to get insurance without government intervention. But time and chance happen to us all, and the only reason you have a reasonable prospect of still having insurance coverage when you need it is the large role the government already plays.
Which brings us to the current debate over reform.
Right-wing opponents of reform would have you believe that President Obama is a wild-eyed socialist, attacking the free market. But unregulated markets don’t work for health care — never have, never will. To the extent we have a working health care system at all right now it’s only because the government covers the elderly, while a combination of regulation and tax subsidies makes it possible for many, but not all, nonelderly Americans to get decent private coverage.
Now Mr. Obama basically proposes using additional regulation and subsidies to make decent insurance available to all of us. That’s not radical; it’s as American as, well, Medicare.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Health Care Nonsense [Bryan]
I’ll be the first to admit that, like most other things, the health care debate is too complex for me to get my mind around. But there are some things that are clearly true, some things that are unknown, and some things that are just nonsense. Here is my attempt to sort of facts from nonsense.
Claim: We have the best health care system in the world.
Truth: This is wrong by pretty much any broad-based measure. We pay much more for health care than any other nation, yet many health outcomes (like life expectancy, infant mortality, and so forth) are worse here than in many other OECD countries. The World Health Organization ranks the USA health care system 37th, below such countries as Dominica and Costa Rica. True, we do some things well, like treat cancer. Overall, though, we are less healthy and we are paying much more money. Polls show that Americans are more dissatisfied with their health care than they are in many other developing countries.
Claim: But in other countries you can’t choose your own doctor.
Truth: The reality is, in fact, that in American you can’t choose your own doctor. I, for example, have a very limited choice of primary care doctors under my plan, which is a very generous plan.
Claim: But in other countries, you have to wait a long time for procedures.
Truth: Actually, polls show that our wait times are often longer than in other countries. In my family, for example, we have waited weeks to get a procedure for our baby Stephen (and, again, we have good insurance).
Claim: In other countries, they ration care.
Truth: We ration care in the this country. You may have noticed that your insurance company decides what you can and cannot have.
Claim: I don’t want a government bureaucrat making medical decisions.
Truth: Well, right now you have a corporate bureaucrat making your medical decisions. The trouble is, the corporate bureaucrat has a vested interest in denying you medical care. When insurance companies deny claims, they make more money; indeed, they have no interest is providing you care if they can legally get out of it. (And they do try to get out of it: check out the highly questionable practice of “rescission” sometimes exercised by insurance companies. If you made any sort of mistake at all in providing your medical history, no matter how trivial, they can void any claim you make thereafter at any time. Hence, we have people being denied treatment for breast cancer because they failed to list past acne treatments. Check out this report, about 30 minutes in.)
Claim: I don't want socialized medicine.
Truth: We already have "socialized" medicine, just a very inefficient form of it. We are socialized in that everyone can receive health care if they just go to the emergency room. Unfortunately, this is probably the most expensive way to take care of sick people, and guess who pays for it. You do. You are, in effect, already paying for an very inefficient type of socialized medicine. The question is not about socialized medicine, it is about being smart about socialized medicine.
Claim: But those darn liberals are going to take away my choices in medical care.
Truth: You don't have choices now. In most states, for example, you don’t have much choice in health insurance providers. Most states have a near monopoly of insurance providers. And, if you are employed, you have to take what your employer gives you.
Claim: Well, Obama is out to take away the few choices that remain.
Truth: No, actually, what he and Democrats have proposed is intended to give you more choices. You can keep what you have, if you want it, or enroll in a not-for-profit public insurance plan if that might better meet your needs. The public plan, if it is included in the bill, will give you a choice you don’t have now.
Claim: Markets are the best way to allocate resources. Government should not be involved.
Truth: I'm a big fan of markets. Markets are cool, nifty things. But markets are not a good way to allocate health care, morally speaking. For markets to work, we have to admit that it would be okay if certain people did not have a certain good. If some people can't afford a plasma TV, we must be prepared to accept that some people will go without. That is how demand is reduced. But, are you going to refuse breast cancer treatment to that single mom because she didn't have adequate insurance? True, if things are too expensive the market may adjust to make things cheaper. But let's be clear: things would adjust in such a way to maximize profit, not to take care of all the sick people.
Claim: We have the best health care system in the world.
Truth: This is wrong by pretty much any broad-based measure. We pay much more for health care than any other nation, yet many health outcomes (like life expectancy, infant mortality, and so forth) are worse here than in many other OECD countries. The World Health Organization ranks the USA health care system 37th, below such countries as Dominica and Costa Rica. True, we do some things well, like treat cancer. Overall, though, we are less healthy and we are paying much more money. Polls show that Americans are more dissatisfied with their health care than they are in many other developing countries.
Health Care Spending as Percent of GDP
Truth: The reality is, in fact, that in American you can’t choose your own doctor. I, for example, have a very limited choice of primary care doctors under my plan, which is a very generous plan.
Claim: But in other countries, you have to wait a long time for procedures.
Truth: Actually, polls show that our wait times are often longer than in other countries. In my family, for example, we have waited weeks to get a procedure for our baby Stephen (and, again, we have good insurance).
Claim: In other countries, they ration care.
Truth: We ration care in the this country. You may have noticed that your insurance company decides what you can and cannot have.
Claim: I don’t want a government bureaucrat making medical decisions.
Truth: Well, right now you have a corporate bureaucrat making your medical decisions. The trouble is, the corporate bureaucrat has a vested interest in denying you medical care. When insurance companies deny claims, they make more money; indeed, they have no interest is providing you care if they can legally get out of it. (And they do try to get out of it: check out the highly questionable practice of “rescission” sometimes exercised by insurance companies. If you made any sort of mistake at all in providing your medical history, no matter how trivial, they can void any claim you make thereafter at any time. Hence, we have people being denied treatment for breast cancer because they failed to list past acne treatments. Check out this report, about 30 minutes in.)
Claim: I don't want socialized medicine.
Truth: We already have "socialized" medicine, just a very inefficient form of it. We are socialized in that everyone can receive health care if they just go to the emergency room. Unfortunately, this is probably the most expensive way to take care of sick people, and guess who pays for it. You do. You are, in effect, already paying for an very inefficient type of socialized medicine. The question is not about socialized medicine, it is about being smart about socialized medicine.
Claim: But those darn liberals are going to take away my choices in medical care.
Truth: You don't have choices now. In most states, for example, you don’t have much choice in health insurance providers. Most states have a near monopoly of insurance providers. And, if you are employed, you have to take what your employer gives you.
Claim: Well, Obama is out to take away the few choices that remain.
Truth: No, actually, what he and Democrats have proposed is intended to give you more choices. You can keep what you have, if you want it, or enroll in a not-for-profit public insurance plan if that might better meet your needs. The public plan, if it is included in the bill, will give you a choice you don’t have now.
Claim: Markets are the best way to allocate resources. Government should not be involved.
Truth: I'm a big fan of markets. Markets are cool, nifty things. But markets are not a good way to allocate health care, morally speaking. For markets to work, we have to admit that it would be okay if certain people did not have a certain good. If some people can't afford a plasma TV, we must be prepared to accept that some people will go without. That is how demand is reduced. But, are you going to refuse breast cancer treatment to that single mom because she didn't have adequate insurance? True, if things are too expensive the market may adjust to make things cheaper. But let's be clear: things would adjust in such a way to maximize profit, not to take care of all the sick people.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Flexitarianism [Bryan]
So, people ask once in a while how our "semi-vegetarianism" is going. If you are one of those people curious to know about the food the Warnicks are shoveling into their bodies, this post is for you. I am pleased to report we have successfully cut out much of the meat from our diet. We usually only eat meat on weekends and special occasions. I'm told that this sort of diet is called "flexitarian." So be it.
Some comments on our experience:
1. Alas, our new diet actually hasn't saved us any money. Buying more fresh fruits and vegetables ends up costing as much as the meat did.
2. It has made me really enjoy cooking. Before, it was easy to just let meat carry the meal. Cooking without meat has made me more adventurous and made cooking really exciting for the first time. Ellie will tell you that I've pretty much taken over in the kitchen.
3. It has opened up a whole new world of food to us. I've been making Dal and Falafals, and perfecting the art of Kung Pao Tofu. Some favorite recipes we've found online include: Artichoke Lasagna, Hot and Spicy Tofu, Linguine With Snow Peas, Cucumber, and Peanut Sauce
4. We don't feel any sense of loss. We feel like we are doing the planet good and that we are living better the precepts of our religion (albeit a minor precept). I think we feel a little better physically. You could say, I guess, that it has been a success.
Some comments on our experience:
1. Alas, our new diet actually hasn't saved us any money. Buying more fresh fruits and vegetables ends up costing as much as the meat did.
2. It has made me really enjoy cooking. Before, it was easy to just let meat carry the meal. Cooking without meat has made me more adventurous and made cooking really exciting for the first time. Ellie will tell you that I've pretty much taken over in the kitchen.
3. It has opened up a whole new world of food to us. I've been making Dal and Falafals, and perfecting the art of Kung Pao Tofu. Some favorite recipes we've found online include: Artichoke Lasagna, Hot and Spicy Tofu, Linguine With Snow Peas, Cucumber, and Peanut Sauce
4. We don't feel any sense of loss. We feel like we are doing the planet good and that we are living better the precepts of our religion (albeit a minor precept). I think we feel a little better physically. You could say, I guess, that it has been a success.
Sarah Palin [Bryan]
She really is a piece of work, ain't she? Her resignation speech was one of the least coherent ramblings I have ever heard from a politician, and that is saying something. Between her and Mark Sanford, it appears all the right-wing governors of the country are going insane.
Summer Pictures [Bryan]
A busy summer so far, camping trip with friends, playing outside in the unusually nice weather, going to Cincinnati for a friend's wedding (congrats again Sarah!), celebrating holidays, taking care of the yard, and so forth.
One of the best parts of the Summer has been having Ellie's brother Sam and his wife Emily around. Sam is working up in Akron over the Summer. They have really made us feel connected to family again in a new way.
Here we are celebrating the Fourth. We went to the Hilliard parade, grilled hamburgers and brats out back, lit sparklers, and went to the Hilliard fireworks display (well, Ellie and the kids went anyway). Ellie said it was fun to watch the kids watch the fireworks, their eyes glued to the sky, mouths frozen in an awestruck smile, gasping and cheering. After each burst, Andrew would say, "That was my favorite." Then the next one would come and he'd say, "THAT was my favorite."
Ellie celebrated her 32nd birthday. Here she is opening presents. I gave her some "body butter" from Crabtree & Evelyn. Flavor: Avocado, Olive Oil, and Basil.
Sam also celebrated his birthday while he was here a few weeks ago. He turned 56.
Bryan and Ellie playing Guitar Hero.
Baby Stephen picture. Notice the strategically placed wash cloth.
On a sad note, somebody bashed out my car window in an attempt to steal...I'm not quite sure what. They didn't take anything, not even the Tic Tacs in my glove compartment. Hey guys, what part of "It doesn't even have a tape deck" do you not understand? To add insult to injury, the next day, while we were in Cincinnati, parked in the Newport Aquarium parking lot, somebody bashed into the bumper of our Highlander, then drove off without even leaving a note. Nice.
One of the best parts of the Summer has been having Ellie's brother Sam and his wife Emily around. Sam is working up in Akron over the Summer. They have really made us feel connected to family again in a new way.
Here we are celebrating the Fourth. We went to the Hilliard parade, grilled hamburgers and brats out back, lit sparklers, and went to the Hilliard fireworks display (well, Ellie and the kids went anyway). Ellie said it was fun to watch the kids watch the fireworks, their eyes glued to the sky, mouths frozen in an awestruck smile, gasping and cheering. After each burst, Andrew would say, "That was my favorite." Then the next one would come and he'd say, "THAT was my favorite."
Ellie celebrated her 32nd birthday. Here she is opening presents. I gave her some "body butter" from Crabtree & Evelyn. Flavor: Avocado, Olive Oil, and Basil.
Sam also celebrated his birthday while he was here a few weeks ago. He turned 56.
Bryan and Ellie playing Guitar Hero.
Baby Stephen picture. Notice the strategically placed wash cloth.
On a sad note, somebody bashed out my car window in an attempt to steal...I'm not quite sure what. They didn't take anything, not even the Tic Tacs in my glove compartment. Hey guys, what part of "It doesn't even have a tape deck" do you not understand? To add insult to injury, the next day, while we were in Cincinnati, parked in the Newport Aquarium parking lot, somebody bashed into the bumper of our Highlander, then drove off without even leaving a note. Nice.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Blogging and Gender [Bryan]
I am usually fairly late in adopting new technologies. The Internet, though, has been an exception. I was on Prodigy before hardly anyone else knew what the Internet was. I began reading blogs around 2002 during the debate about the Iraq war. At that time, blogging was a rough and tumble world of flame wars and impolite ranting. It was totally a man's world.
Now, however, most of the bloggers I know personally are women. They tell me that I am the "only guy they know who blogs." It has been a strange evolution.
I think my perception of change has to do with the growth in LDS culture of mommy blogs and family blogs, which consist mostly in pictures and updates on family happenings. This type of blog is particularly popular among student families, who use blogs as a way of keeping in contact with family "back home" in Utah.
This, of course, is a completely legitimate way of thinking about blogging. I like to check in on family blogs, too. But I'm sure many people find our blog to be odd, with, for example, a series on posts on economics and health care. The reason for this difference is this: I was "raised" on the Internet during my formative years to see blogs as places to debate ideas and I can't quite shake that upbringing.
Now, however, most of the bloggers I know personally are women. They tell me that I am the "only guy they know who blogs." It has been a strange evolution.
I think my perception of change has to do with the growth in LDS culture of mommy blogs and family blogs, which consist mostly in pictures and updates on family happenings. This type of blog is particularly popular among student families, who use blogs as a way of keeping in contact with family "back home" in Utah.
This, of course, is a completely legitimate way of thinking about blogging. I like to check in on family blogs, too. But I'm sure many people find our blog to be odd, with, for example, a series on posts on economics and health care. The reason for this difference is this: I was "raised" on the Internet during my formative years to see blogs as places to debate ideas and I can't quite shake that upbringing.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Taking history into your hands [Bryan]
I've been following closely the hopeful/historic/troubling events in Iran. I don't know if the election was stolen, although I suspect that it was. I don't know much about this Mousavi guy, although he doesn't seem like much of an improvement. It has been hard, though, not to be deeply moved by what is happening -- to watch people with the courage and determination to take history into their hands and try to shape it into something better.
I watched a YouTube video today of a young Iranian girl bleeding to death in the streets of Tehran. It was horrific thing to watch -- a series of images that will stay with me for a long time. She was probably in her twenties or late teens, dressed as a more conservative Muslim. She was shot in the chest. One can see the blood spread. One can see the life drain from her eyes. One can hear the panicked screams as people realize how badly hurt she is. All for what? It could be for nothing. Or for everything.
Times like this make me feel small and trivial. Today, for example, I went to Walmart, went to the lake, and played Guitar Hero. It was a fun time, well spent with family. But I have never taken history into my hands. I have never left in the morning knowing that, during to day, I might be beaten or even killed for taking a stand. I have never really stood up to someone (or for someone) like that, fought for justice with everything on the line. What would I do? Would I find an excuse?
I pity people who face such situations. But, sometimes, I also envy them. They know something about themselves that I do not know about myself.
I watched a YouTube video today of a young Iranian girl bleeding to death in the streets of Tehran. It was horrific thing to watch -- a series of images that will stay with me for a long time. She was probably in her twenties or late teens, dressed as a more conservative Muslim. She was shot in the chest. One can see the blood spread. One can see the life drain from her eyes. One can hear the panicked screams as people realize how badly hurt she is. All for what? It could be for nothing. Or for everything.
Times like this make me feel small and trivial. Today, for example, I went to Walmart, went to the lake, and played Guitar Hero. It was a fun time, well spent with family. But I have never taken history into my hands. I have never left in the morning knowing that, during to day, I might be beaten or even killed for taking a stand. I have never really stood up to someone (or for someone) like that, fought for justice with everything on the line. What would I do? Would I find an excuse?
I pity people who face such situations. But, sometimes, I also envy them. They know something about themselves that I do not know about myself.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Why Was Our Healthcare So Expensive? Part II [Bryan]
I should clarify, I think, Dr. Gawande's position. His project is to explain why health care costs vary so much from city to city. He cites some studies about differential treatment between cities:
What this suggests is that better science can help us reduce costs. For this reason, I think the Democrats are wise to push "comparative effectiveness research" and the Republicans wrong to oppose it (the Republican strategy appears to be to stringently oppose reforms that would save money in medical practice, and then bitterly complain that health care reform is too expensive).
Health-care costs ultimately arise from the accumulation of individual decisions doctors make about which services and treatments to write an order for. The most expensive piece of medical equipment, as the saying goes, is a doctor’s pen. And, as a rule, hospital executives don’t own the pen caps. Doctors do.
If doctors wield the pen, why do they do it so differently from one place to another? Brenda Sirovich, another Dartmouth researcher, published a study last year that provided an important clue. She and her team surveyed some eight hundred primary-care physicians from high-cost cities (such as Las Vegas and New York), low-cost cities (such as Sacramento and Boise), and others in between. The researchers asked the physicians specifically how they would handle a variety of patient cases. It turned out that differences in decision-making emerged in only some kinds of cases. In situations in which the right thing to do was well established—for example, whether to recommend a mammogram for a fifty-year-old woman (the answer is yes)—physicians in high- and low-cost cities made the same decisions. But, in cases in which the science was unclear, some physicians pursued the maximum possible amount of testing and procedures; some pursued the minimum. And which kind of doctor they were depended on where they came from.So, in cases where the science is unclear, doctors in high-cost cities tended to adopt a "more treatment is better" approach. He points out that this can't all be explained by differences in the doctors' training. In any given city, doctors come from many different medical schools. He argues instead that, sometimes, a culture of over-treatment arises in some cities. And, sometimes, that culture arises because some doctors develop an entrepreneurial spirit about the practice of medicine. Health care costs are explained, then, by some mixture of hazy science combined and the particular culture of medicine in some cities. It's the culture, then, not simply individually greedy doctors.Sirovich asked doctors how they would treat a seventy-five-year-old woman with typical heartburn symptoms and “adequate health insurance to cover tests and medications.” Physicians in high- and low-cost cities were equally likely to prescribe antacid therapy and to check for H. pylori, an ulcer-causing bacterium—steps strongly recommended by national guidelines. But when it came to measures of less certain value—and higher cost—the differences were considerable. More than seventy per cent of physicians in high-cost cities referred the patient to a gastroenterologist, ordered an upper endoscopy, or both, while half as many in low-cost cities did. Physicians from high-cost cities typically recommended that patients with well-controlled hypertension see them in the office every one to three months, while those from low-cost cities recommended visits twice yearly. In case after uncertain case, more was not necessarily better. But physicians from the most expensive cities did the most expensive things.
What this suggests is that better science can help us reduce costs. For this reason, I think the Democrats are wise to push "comparative effectiveness research" and the Republicans wrong to oppose it (the Republican strategy appears to be to stringently oppose reforms that would save money in medical practice, and then bitterly complain that health care reform is too expensive).
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
Why Was Our Healthcare So Expensive? [Bryan]
We recently added up the total hospital bills for the birth of baby Stephen. Remember, we had an emergency C-Section, plus a brief visit to the NICU. Ellie's bill totaled $20,000, while Stephen's totaled about $10,000. That is a lot of money. Luckily, we didn't have to pay these bills with our insurance, but it got me wondering: Why does health care cost so much?
In addition, I've been wondering why American health care performs so poorly against other health care systems worldwide. In other countries, they spend a fraction of what we spend on health care, but their health outcomes are usually much better than ours. Why does our health system do so poorly with all the money we put in?
I think I've finally found an answer, and it has almost nothing to do with malpractice lawsuits, greedy insurance companies, or "socialized medicine" or lack thereof. The problem is, unfortunately, doctors that have become businessmen (and women). Doctors make money on tests, surgeries, procedures, referrals, and so forth. It is in their interests to maximize the use of health care, which drives up total costs and, since all medical procedures have risks, this actually makes for poorer health outcomes. Or so this article (byAtul Gawande) claims. Go read it. Most interesting thing I've ever read about the health care cost problem.
A snippet from the conclusion:
In addition, I've been wondering why American health care performs so poorly against other health care systems worldwide. In other countries, they spend a fraction of what we spend on health care, but their health outcomes are usually much better than ours. Why does our health system do so poorly with all the money we put in?
I think I've finally found an answer, and it has almost nothing to do with malpractice lawsuits, greedy insurance companies, or "socialized medicine" or lack thereof. The problem is, unfortunately, doctors that have become businessmen (and women). Doctors make money on tests, surgeries, procedures, referrals, and so forth. It is in their interests to maximize the use of health care, which drives up total costs and, since all medical procedures have risks, this actually makes for poorer health outcomes. Or so this article (byAtul Gawande) claims. Go read it. Most interesting thing I've ever read about the health care cost problem.
A snippet from the conclusion:
When you look across the spectrum from Grand Junction to McAllen—and the almost threefold difference in the costs of care—you come to realize that we are witnessing a battle for the soul of American medicine. Somewhere in the United States at this moment, a patient with chest pain, or a tumor, or a cough is seeing a doctor. And the damning question we have to ask is whether the doctor is set up to meet the needs of the patient, first and foremost, or to maximize revenue.
There is no insurance system that will make the two aims match perfectly. But having a system that does so much to misalign them has proved disastrous. As economists have often pointed out, we pay doctors for quantity, not quality. As they point out less often, we also pay them as individuals, rather than as members of a team working together for their patients. Both practices have made for serious problems.
Providing health care is like building a house. The task requires experts, expensive equipment and materials, and a huge amount of coordination. Imagine that, instead of paying a contractor to pull a team together and keep them on track, you paid an electrician for every outlet he recommends, a plumber for every faucet, and a carpenter for every cabinet. Would you be surprised if you got a house with a thousand outlets, faucets, and cabinets, at three times the cost you expected, and the whole thing fell apart a couple of years later? Getting the country’s best electrician on the job (he trained at Harvard, somebody tells you) isn’t going to solve this problem. Nor will changing the person who writes him the check.
Sunday, June 07, 2009
A Little Better? [Ellie]
A few months ago, I read an article in the Atlantic Monthly by Hanna Rosin called "The Case Against Breastfeeding." I'm sure they chose that title just to be provocative, since its author was, in fact, a breastfeeding mother (eerily, nursing her third and last newborn, a boy--just like mine). Rather than actually arguing against breastfeeding, Rosin was more rebelling against the powerful medical and social coercion associated with it.
I can see why she wants to rebel. Breastfeeding is such a fraught issue. I have friends who can't nurse but dearly want to. I have friends who can but wish they had a reason not to. I have friends who've nursed for years and friends who've nursed for months. I have friends who've gone to extreme measures hoping that nursing would eventually work out and then been devastated when it never did. No matter the variation on this theme, no mother I know has escaped completely unscathed. We are judged if we do (she nursed her kids for how long?) and judged if we don't (she's so selfish).
In her article, Rosin contends that, while recent studies have found only modest benefits, if any, tied to breastfeeding, women are continually bombarded with the message that you are only a good mom if you breastfeed. She is irritated by what she sees as the constant yet unwarranted cheerleading of breastfeeding advocates. Rosin would modify the "breast is best" chant of La Leche-leaguers to "breast is only a little better."
A little better? Well. I'm not here to contest her point. I haven't read the research. She might be right. But I need to believe that the sacrifices I'm making to breastfeed are not just "a little better." For instance, I recently had to turn down the invitation of some friends to go camping because I didn't know how I would manage the breastfeeding issues (To vanish or not to vanish? If not, then I'll have to wrestle with a nursing cover. . .). I've had to interrupt the writing of this blog post on breastfeeding to breastfeed (no lie). I can't really take my kids to the zoo by myself this summer because I don't know what I'd do with my other two in such a vast public place while I breastfeed. Plus the whole nastiness of having to breastfeed in public, period.
Anyway, what I'm arguing for is this: I want to retain my mistaken belief that it is a LOT better to breastfeed. I want Stephen to be healthier, smarter, richer, better looking, and better behaved. I want his guaranteed admission to an Ivy League institution. And for me I want. . .a medal.
But I'll settle for the fact that despite its myriad inconveniences, I kinda like breastfeeding. I love the physical and emotional connection it builds between me and my son. While it might not be as beneficial as I'd like to believe, it still feels like The Right Thing to Do. And I'm a sucker for that kind of stuff.
I can see why she wants to rebel. Breastfeeding is such a fraught issue. I have friends who can't nurse but dearly want to. I have friends who can but wish they had a reason not to. I have friends who've nursed for years and friends who've nursed for months. I have friends who've gone to extreme measures hoping that nursing would eventually work out and then been devastated when it never did. No matter the variation on this theme, no mother I know has escaped completely unscathed. We are judged if we do (she nursed her kids for how long?) and judged if we don't (she's so selfish).
In her article, Rosin contends that, while recent studies have found only modest benefits, if any, tied to breastfeeding, women are continually bombarded with the message that you are only a good mom if you breastfeed. She is irritated by what she sees as the constant yet unwarranted cheerleading of breastfeeding advocates. Rosin would modify the "breast is best" chant of La Leche-leaguers to "breast is only a little better."
A little better? Well. I'm not here to contest her point. I haven't read the research. She might be right. But I need to believe that the sacrifices I'm making to breastfeed are not just "a little better." For instance, I recently had to turn down the invitation of some friends to go camping because I didn't know how I would manage the breastfeeding issues (To vanish or not to vanish? If not, then I'll have to wrestle with a nursing cover. . .). I've had to interrupt the writing of this blog post on breastfeeding to breastfeed (no lie). I can't really take my kids to the zoo by myself this summer because I don't know what I'd do with my other two in such a vast public place while I breastfeed. Plus the whole nastiness of having to breastfeed in public, period.
Anyway, what I'm arguing for is this: I want to retain my mistaken belief that it is a LOT better to breastfeed. I want Stephen to be healthier, smarter, richer, better looking, and better behaved. I want his guaranteed admission to an Ivy League institution. And for me I want. . .a medal.
But I'll settle for the fact that despite its myriad inconveniences, I kinda like breastfeeding. I love the physical and emotional connection it builds between me and my son. While it might not be as beneficial as I'd like to believe, it still feels like The Right Thing to Do. And I'm a sucker for that kind of stuff.
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
What kind of world will Stephen have? [Bryan]
Last night I watched a show that really, really bothered me. It was called 2100, an ABC News special broadcast. The premise of the show was following a fictional girl, named Lucy, through life as it might play out if some of the projections currently being made about climate change and other environmental problems turn out to be accurate. The segment claimed that these were "worst case" projections, but they seemed relatively moderate to me (at least until the end, which seemed a bit far-fetched). The effects of climate change, judged by melting sea ice and glaciers, seem to be outpacing even the most pessimistic assumptions. They did the segment with some good graphic-novel type of animation, which had a surprising impact on me.
The segment stuck with me because this could be the life of my kids. Stephen, like the character Lucy, was born in 2009. I really wonder what sort of world we are leaving behind for Nora, Andrew, and Stephen. Not a good one, I think. We've really trashed the place -- and it wasn't our place.
The projections are relatively familiar: Gas shortages and riots as oil demand vastly exceeds supply. Outer suburbs become vast slums as people abandon them to live closer to the cities (can't afford to drive). Water shortage in the American Southwest (bye, bye, Las Vegas) and in cities that depend on glacier run-offs. Water shortage and soaring cost of oil lead to food shortages and mass starvation in other countries. Thirsty and starving people destabilize national borders, populations move as islands and low-lying cities flood, leading to war and civil unrest. It is all very grim.
Now, this isn't the only scenario, and certainly the human race has avoided disaster before. There was never a nuclear war, for example, which was a prospect that used to terrify me as a kid. But, in that case, it was obvious that our short-term interest was in not getting blown up. That created restraint and, to some degree, wisdom. With these sorts of problems, our short-term "economic" interest lies in doing more of the same. Humanity has never shown much interest in thinking about long-term problems. I like to think we can avoid this, but governments (and I am looking at you US Senate) seem resistant to even the most modest measures of restraint. I hope somebody proves me wrong.
Here is the opening segment.
Earth 2100: Civilization at Crossroads
Shared via AddThis
The segment stuck with me because this could be the life of my kids. Stephen, like the character Lucy, was born in 2009. I really wonder what sort of world we are leaving behind for Nora, Andrew, and Stephen. Not a good one, I think. We've really trashed the place -- and it wasn't our place.
The projections are relatively familiar: Gas shortages and riots as oil demand vastly exceeds supply. Outer suburbs become vast slums as people abandon them to live closer to the cities (can't afford to drive). Water shortage in the American Southwest (bye, bye, Las Vegas) and in cities that depend on glacier run-offs. Water shortage and soaring cost of oil lead to food shortages and mass starvation in other countries. Thirsty and starving people destabilize national borders, populations move as islands and low-lying cities flood, leading to war and civil unrest. It is all very grim.
Now, this isn't the only scenario, and certainly the human race has avoided disaster before. There was never a nuclear war, for example, which was a prospect that used to terrify me as a kid. But, in that case, it was obvious that our short-term interest was in not getting blown up. That created restraint and, to some degree, wisdom. With these sorts of problems, our short-term "economic" interest lies in doing more of the same. Humanity has never shown much interest in thinking about long-term problems. I like to think we can avoid this, but governments (and I am looking at you US Senate) seem resistant to even the most modest measures of restraint. I hope somebody proves me wrong.
Here is the opening segment.
Earth 2100: Civilization at Crossroads
Shared via AddThis
Nora Happenings [Bryan]
Nora's Kindergarten didn't do a graduation (thank goodness!). But they did have a little open house with punch and cookies on the second-to-last day of school. Here is Nora on the school playground with some friends.
Nora and her teacher, Mrs. P., on the last day of school.
Nora's school. Not much to look at, but we like it. The school district is very short on funds (the community refuses to pass a levy), but they do great things with their very modest resources.
Nora recently wrote a series of books we've taken to calling the "Haley series" -- Haley at the Park, Haley Goes to Wal-mart, etc. Haley, from what I understand, is the name of a friend of hers at school. Here she is showing off her work.Nora's latest piano recital.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Huntsman, Romney, and the Mormon Vote [Bryan]
Interesting commentary on the new Huntsman gig with the Obama administration:
It may be that Huntsman is setting himself up as a picture-perfect, bipartisan-friendly Republican presidential candidate in 2016. Whatever the case, it reinforces the message I've been peddling for a long time now: the base of the Republican party despises Mormons. Why we Mormons want to associate ourselves so closely with that mean-spirited group perplexes me.The nomination, yesterday, of Utah Governor Jon Huntsman to be US Ambassador to the People's Republic of China - like Romney, a handsome and articulate boy-wonder billionaire of that faith - has those eyebrows wagging again. It speaks volumes of the outside-the-box tendencies of the President and his team that the thought would even occur to them to appoint such an unexpected envoy, that they would know that Huntsman - a former LDS missionary in Taiwan - speaks Mandarin, and that they'd be able to convince the Governor to switch jobs for a post that is not necessarily a promotion. They must have also had good enough intelligence to sense that Huntsman was bored at his current gig. That they made the sale is a head turner, indeed.
That they announced this shortly after Republican National Committee chair Michael Steele gaffed his way into another controversy, this time regarding the evident anti-Mormon bigotry in Evangelical Christian circles, is nothing less than political poetry. Steele said, on Bill Bennett's radio show, "Remember, it was the base that rejected Mitt because of his switch on pro-life, from pro-choice to pro-life. It was the base that rejected Mitt because it had issues with Mormonism..."
What is a gaffe? Generally it's something that's true but that society doesn't want to admit.
Mitt Romney is technically the frontrunner for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012. He's got the money, a national organization, and the on-camera talent and political experience to handle the national spotlight. Ideologically, his positions line up pretty perfectly with the conservative GOP platform. If any Republican "deserves" it for having paid his dues loyally to the party, it's Mitt. And yet it's extremely unlikely that the said GOP base - we're talking mainly white Southern Baptists here - is going to get over its Mormonphobia in just three years enough to make that possible.
The appointment of Huntsman is thus, politically, a slam dunk. When GOP primary voters inevitably reject Romney once again in the 2012 primaries and caucuses outside of the Mountain West, the resentment - already boiling after last year's adventures in presidential politics - among rank-and-file Mormons that the party to whom they've given so much still doesn't really want them in the Master's house rather than the servant's quarters, will sting. Meanwhile, another of their prominent citizens will likely still be Obama's man in Beijing, proof that somebody in American politics isn't dissing the LDS and its members. And in key swing states like Nevada and Colorado, LDS members are legion.
Some said Obama was crazy, back in 2007 and 2008, to reach out to what conventional wisdom thought was an impenetrable GOP base... Crazy, like a fox.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Mother's Day Rant [Ellie]
I'm pretty sure that I've failed to keep every one of the "my child will never. . ." resolutions I made before I became a parent, and my oldest is only six.
My child will never be the one to hit. (How many two-year-old boys don't? Mine did.)
My child will never be the one with the permanent runny nose. (Pass the Kleenex--from October to April, Baby.)
My child will never run around the house naked. (Oh, I've beat that. I've had--within a period of months--two kids naked in public because I forgot to bring changes of clothing.)
My child will never wear dirty clothes out of the house. (How many times can you change one child's clothing in a day?)
I have no more illusions that I am now or ever will be a perfect mom. I've waved a tearful goodbye to each illusion as it flew out the window and I turned to face the reality of life with my children.
But, this isn't the rant you might expect. I'm not going to tell you how much I hate Mother's Day because I'm not good enough and I feel guilty and why do people idealize mothers, anyway etc., etc., etc. I know many women feel that way. But I, personally, love Mother's Day. My rant is directed to mothers who don't. Here are my "Top Five" reasons they should love Mother's Day, too.
1. You went through 9 months of pregnancy and then hours of excruciating pain during labor just to get the kids here. I think that alone deserves one day of thanks per year.
2. No matter how inadequate you feel, think for a moment about the sacrifices you have made for your children. No mother sacrifices nothing, and most sacrifice many things--sleep; careers; money; free time; being surrounded by clean, beautiful, unbroken things; time alone with their spouse--every day. Let them thank you for it.
3. How do you think your kids feel when you tell them you hate Mother's Day because you don't feel like a good mother? Like they must be lousy since you're so unhappy with how they turned out. That's how.
4. Who doesn't like to be treated well--breakfast in bed, sloppy kid kisses, hand-drawn cards, the obligatory Mother's Day school-made flowerpot complete with wilted flower, dinner made for you--for one day. Just enjoy it!
5. There is no ideal mother. She is imaginary. We are all inadequate to the task. But we give it our all, and that dedication is worth celebrating.
My child will never be the one to hit. (How many two-year-old boys don't? Mine did.)
My child will never be the one with the permanent runny nose. (Pass the Kleenex--from October to April, Baby.)
My child will never run around the house naked. (Oh, I've beat that. I've had--within a period of months--two kids naked in public because I forgot to bring changes of clothing.)
My child will never wear dirty clothes out of the house. (How many times can you change one child's clothing in a day?)
I have no more illusions that I am now or ever will be a perfect mom. I've waved a tearful goodbye to each illusion as it flew out the window and I turned to face the reality of life with my children.
But, this isn't the rant you might expect. I'm not going to tell you how much I hate Mother's Day because I'm not good enough and I feel guilty and why do people idealize mothers, anyway etc., etc., etc. I know many women feel that way. But I, personally, love Mother's Day. My rant is directed to mothers who don't. Here are my "Top Five" reasons they should love Mother's Day, too.
1. You went through 9 months of pregnancy and then hours of excruciating pain during labor just to get the kids here. I think that alone deserves one day of thanks per year.
2. No matter how inadequate you feel, think for a moment about the sacrifices you have made for your children. No mother sacrifices nothing, and most sacrifice many things--sleep; careers; money; free time; being surrounded by clean, beautiful, unbroken things; time alone with their spouse--every day. Let them thank you for it.
3. How do you think your kids feel when you tell them you hate Mother's Day because you don't feel like a good mother? Like they must be lousy since you're so unhappy with how they turned out. That's how.
4. Who doesn't like to be treated well--breakfast in bed, sloppy kid kisses, hand-drawn cards, the obligatory Mother's Day school-made flowerpot complete with wilted flower, dinner made for you--for one day. Just enjoy it!
5. There is no ideal mother. She is imaginary. We are all inadequate to the task. But we give it our all, and that dedication is worth celebrating.
Sunday, May 03, 2009
Photos [Bryan]
Stephen is a gloriously fat and generally happy baby.
Andrew at an Easter-egg hunt (one of three)
Happy Stephen again.
Nora showing off her new pink dress.
Dressed for Easter.Wednesday, April 29, 2009
First 100 Days -- Updated [Bryan]
So, we have had 100 days with a new president. Fair or not, since FDR 100 days have been seen as the first time to realistically review a new president. So, here is my review.
Foreign Policy
Successes: One of the major reasons I supported Obama was to change the image of America in the world. It seems to me that, so far, this expectation has been fulfilled -- and then some! The most impressive symbolic acts so far have been the open town hall meetings, press conferences, and speeches he has given in Europe and Turkey. He has impressed foreign leaders, reporters, and citizens far and wide. This will all certainly pay off in the long run. He has already made important moves with Russia in the areas of nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. His Cuba policy (easing travel restrictions and monetary transactions) is a welcome change, and relations appear to be greatly improving with Latin America. He seems eager to listen, rather than preach.
Failures: He has been unable to convince European countries to increase stimulus spending, which could prove to be very important in the economic recovery. I don't think this is as big a deal as some do, but it is still a failure.
Question marks: The Big Unknown right now is Afghanistan/Pakistan. Obama, as he promised, is sending more troops to the region. I am genuinely unsure of whether this is the best thing to do. The situation is both countries appears is worsening. It also remains to be seen whether Obama has the strength to stand up to the current far-right Israeli government and its odd supporters here at home, and put some real pressure on Israel to stop building illegal settlements in the West Bank (of course, he needs to continue to pressure Palestinians to stop rocket attacks, but that is a given).
Reading: "Signs of Spring: U.S.-Latin America Relations Thaw," Time.
Reading: "Obama in Europe: Overtures to Ovations," Financial times.
Reading: "9 Moments That Mattered," Atlantic
Reading: "Aided by Safety Nets, Europe Resists Stimulus Push," NY Times
Economy
Successes: The stimulus package was impressive. It was probably not big enough and too focused on less-stimulative tax cuts -- but the blame for that lies elsewhere. If anything, Obama might have made a mistake in trusting that Republicans would compromise in good faith. Obama's budget was a much more honest budget than we've had in the past (actually including the costs of war), and contains money for all the right priorities (energy, health care). Not bad at all -- good long, term investment.
Failures: Bailout money is still being spent in unseemly ways, thanks to incomprehensible behavior by Wall Street executives. Obama's response has been erratic and fairly weak.
Question marks: The big banks and the auto industry are still in big trouble. All of the options seem bad. Good luck with that, Mr. President. And, obviously, current deficits are not sustainable. Perhaps the big test of the Obama presidency will be, once the economy recovers, to bring these under control through a mixture of sensible spending reductions, tax hikes, and health care restructuring. He is already taking steps to do this, but we'll see.
Reading: "I give Obama an A, a B and an F," Rob Reich
Restoring the Rule of Law
Successes: Obama seems to have a plan in place to close Gitmo and he has slammed the door on torture practices. His decision to release the torture memos was brave and the right thing to do. Hooray!
Failures: His notions of the legal status of "enemy combatants" and of illegal wire tapping have been indistinguishable from Bush's. Boo! Boo! Boo!
Question marks: I am undecided whether prosecutions of the Bush wrongdoers should proceed in a vigorous way. I can see the need for it (we are a nation of laws, for heaven's sake), but I can also see it completely distracting from the rest of his important agenda.
Reading: "Report Card on Civil Liberties," American Prospect.
Overall, I think he has done a good job so far -- probably even an excellent job. Great challenges and questions remain.
Update:
Some other thoughtful reflections on the first 100 days:
Mike Tomasky: "100 days: Setting the tone for America"
Yglesias: "Obama is on track to accomplish major changes"
Daniel Gross: "The Patient is in Stable Condition"
Foreign Policy
Successes: One of the major reasons I supported Obama was to change the image of America in the world. It seems to me that, so far, this expectation has been fulfilled -- and then some! The most impressive symbolic acts so far have been the open town hall meetings, press conferences, and speeches he has given in Europe and Turkey. He has impressed foreign leaders, reporters, and citizens far and wide. This will all certainly pay off in the long run. He has already made important moves with Russia in the areas of nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. His Cuba policy (easing travel restrictions and monetary transactions) is a welcome change, and relations appear to be greatly improving with Latin America. He seems eager to listen, rather than preach.
Failures: He has been unable to convince European countries to increase stimulus spending, which could prove to be very important in the economic recovery. I don't think this is as big a deal as some do, but it is still a failure.
Question marks: The Big Unknown right now is Afghanistan/Pakistan. Obama, as he promised, is sending more troops to the region. I am genuinely unsure of whether this is the best thing to do. The situation is both countries appears is worsening. It also remains to be seen whether Obama has the strength to stand up to the current far-right Israeli government and its odd supporters here at home, and put some real pressure on Israel to stop building illegal settlements in the West Bank (of course, he needs to continue to pressure Palestinians to stop rocket attacks, but that is a given).
Reading: "Signs of Spring: U.S.-Latin America Relations Thaw," Time.
Reading: "Obama in Europe: Overtures to Ovations," Financial times.
Reading: "9 Moments That Mattered," Atlantic
Reading: "Aided by Safety Nets, Europe Resists Stimulus Push," NY Times
Economy
Successes: The stimulus package was impressive. It was probably not big enough and too focused on less-stimulative tax cuts -- but the blame for that lies elsewhere. If anything, Obama might have made a mistake in trusting that Republicans would compromise in good faith. Obama's budget was a much more honest budget than we've had in the past (actually including the costs of war), and contains money for all the right priorities (energy, health care). Not bad at all -- good long, term investment.
Failures: Bailout money is still being spent in unseemly ways, thanks to incomprehensible behavior by Wall Street executives. Obama's response has been erratic and fairly weak.
Question marks: The big banks and the auto industry are still in big trouble. All of the options seem bad. Good luck with that, Mr. President. And, obviously, current deficits are not sustainable. Perhaps the big test of the Obama presidency will be, once the economy recovers, to bring these under control through a mixture of sensible spending reductions, tax hikes, and health care restructuring. He is already taking steps to do this, but we'll see.
Reading: "I give Obama an A, a B and an F," Rob Reich
Restoring the Rule of Law
Successes: Obama seems to have a plan in place to close Gitmo and he has slammed the door on torture practices. His decision to release the torture memos was brave and the right thing to do. Hooray!
Failures: His notions of the legal status of "enemy combatants" and of illegal wire tapping have been indistinguishable from Bush's. Boo! Boo! Boo!
Question marks: I am undecided whether prosecutions of the Bush wrongdoers should proceed in a vigorous way. I can see the need for it (we are a nation of laws, for heaven's sake), but I can also see it completely distracting from the rest of his important agenda.
Reading: "Report Card on Civil Liberties," American Prospect.
Overall, I think he has done a good job so far -- probably even an excellent job. Great challenges and questions remain.
Update:
Some other thoughtful reflections on the first 100 days:
Mike Tomasky: "100 days: Setting the tone for America"
Yglesias: "Obama is on track to accomplish major changes"
Daniel Gross: "The Patient is in Stable Condition"
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Jeni's Splendid Ice Cream
One of the best parts about Columbus, Ohio, is Jeni's Splendid Ice Cream. You will never taste such a creative, tasty ice cream menu. My top five flavors:
1. Goat Cheese with Roasted Red Cherries -- Blue Jacket Dairy goat cheese with roasted Michigan cherries.
2. Thai Chili -- Krema Peanut Butter (a Columbus company), with toasted coconut, cayenne and coconut milk.
3. Sea Salt and Olive Oil -- Salt, oil, and pumpkin seeds (no, really, it is great).
4. Pistachio and Honey -- Toasted pistachios with Ashland County honey.
5. Strawberry Rose Petal -- Fresh strawberries, with a hint of real rose.
1. Goat Cheese with Roasted Red Cherries -- Blue Jacket Dairy goat cheese with roasted Michigan cherries.
2. Thai Chili -- Krema Peanut Butter (a Columbus company), with toasted coconut, cayenne and coconut milk.
3. Sea Salt and Olive Oil -- Salt, oil, and pumpkin seeds (no, really, it is great).
4. Pistachio and Honey -- Toasted pistachios with Ashland County honey.
5. Strawberry Rose Petal -- Fresh strawberries, with a hint of real rose.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Springtime on Campus [Bryan]
Spring is my favorite season on a university campus. The energy starts to increase as people sense that the end of the year is in sight. Students begin to emerge from their dormitories and can be seen frolicking, sunbathing, and studying in the sunshine, while a crazy fundamentalist preacher simultaneously calls these young sinners to repentance -- unsuccessfully. I just got back from the central oval, where I sat on the grass, prepared my lesson for Monday, read philosophy, and took it all in. And right now, my office window is open to a blossoming tree just outside. The wind is gently blowing the subtle fragrance inside, and I'm snorting it in like a drug. This is what I signed up for. Life is good.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
When it rains, it pours [Ellie]
Look at me posting twice in one day. . .
I've been thinking about nicknames lately. My theory is, either you're a nicknamer or you're not. I love nicknamers. There's something so chummy and at-home-with-the-world about them. If they don't like a person's name, well, they just come up with their own. They never question their right to do so. They are confident that people will answer to whatever they choose to call them. I've always had friends who were nicknamers, and while I've generally hated their nicknames, I've loved what I saw as the desire behind the nicknames--to express their affection in a comfortable shorthand. I wish I were a nicknamer.
I'm not. I've tried. I feel awkward and goofy. I'm pretty much unable to call anyone by anything but the name by which they were first introduced to me. My sons are Andrew and Stephen, not Andy or Steve (I don't mind if it happens some day, I just won't call them that). My nicknames for my kids are unimaginative and lame: two Buddies and a Sweet Pea. I can't even come up with a new nickname for Stephen--he just has to be "Little Buddy" to Andrew's "Big Buddy."
Stephen really ought to have his own nickname. He'll have enough hand-me-downs to deal with in his life. Suggestions, anyone?
I've been thinking about nicknames lately. My theory is, either you're a nicknamer or you're not. I love nicknamers. There's something so chummy and at-home-with-the-world about them. If they don't like a person's name, well, they just come up with their own. They never question their right to do so. They are confident that people will answer to whatever they choose to call them. I've always had friends who were nicknamers, and while I've generally hated their nicknames, I've loved what I saw as the desire behind the nicknames--to express their affection in a comfortable shorthand. I wish I were a nicknamer.
I'm not. I've tried. I feel awkward and goofy. I'm pretty much unable to call anyone by anything but the name by which they were first introduced to me. My sons are Andrew and Stephen, not Andy or Steve (I don't mind if it happens some day, I just won't call them that). My nicknames for my kids are unimaginative and lame: two Buddies and a Sweet Pea. I can't even come up with a new nickname for Stephen--he just has to be "Little Buddy" to Andrew's "Big Buddy."
Stephen really ought to have his own nickname. He'll have enough hand-me-downs to deal with in his life. Suggestions, anyone?
A Riff on New Babies [Ellie]
Love it
-new baby smell
-his scrunchy face with its thoughtful expressions
-huge toothless smiles
-cuddling a sleeping baby on my chest
-tiny little shoes
-his chubby thighs and soft skin
-bath time
-knowing someone is so comforted by my presence
Could do without
-the feeling that I'm swimming in body fluids (One day recently I counted seven different body fluids--mine and others--that had been smeared on me during the day. Don't think about this too
closely. . .)
-smelling like sour milk all day every day
-changing shirts three times a day
-having my carefully constructed a wall of airy indifference ("It doesn't matter what happens at home while I'm out; I deserve some time off!"), crumbled by the guilt of opening the door to hear my baby screaming and see my husband looking weary
-the desperate feeling of really needing to nurse
-my incredibly limited attention span
-this terrible sugar craving which is sabotaging my efforts to lose the baby fat
-new baby smell
-his scrunchy face with its thoughtful expressions
-huge toothless smiles
-cuddling a sleeping baby on my chest
-tiny little shoes
-his chubby thighs and soft skin
-bath time
-knowing someone is so comforted by my presence
Could do without
-the feeling that I'm swimming in body fluids (One day recently I counted seven different body fluids--mine and others--that had been smeared on me during the day. Don't think about this too
closely. . .)
-smelling like sour milk all day every day
-changing shirts three times a day
-having my carefully constructed a wall of airy indifference ("It doesn't matter what happens at home while I'm out; I deserve some time off!"), crumbled by the guilt of opening the door to hear my baby screaming and see my husband looking weary
-the desperate feeling of really needing to nurse
-my incredibly limited attention span
-this terrible sugar craving which is sabotaging my efforts to lose the baby fat
Monday, April 06, 2009
Montreal [Bryan]
Last month was conference month for me. This year, my big conference was in Montreal, Canada. When I first went to these academic conferences, I felt very awkward. "Mingling" has never been an activity that I excel at, or even enjoy very much. Now, though, there is a critical mass of people that I know and like, and it always feels like a reunion to see them all again.
I liked Montreal, too. I spent an afternoon exploring the "old city," the highlight of which was a visit to the beautiful Basilique Notre-Dame de Montreal. It had a stunning interior -- perhaps the most beautiful church interior I've seen. I forgot my camera, but here is a nice shot I found elsewhere.
The next afternoon, I explored the Musée des beaux-arts de Montréal. They have a nice little representative collection -- Monet, Rembrandt, Picasso, Boucher, Renoir, Cezanne, etc.
I then hiked up the Royal Mountain (Mont Real in old French) -- the hill in the middle of the city from which it derives its name. Great view of the city (and my face, I might add).
360 Degrees
By the way, if you are ever in Quebec, be sure to order some Poutin -- french fries, cheese curd, and gravy. Yummy stuff -- "quintessential Canadian comfort food."
I liked Montreal, too. I spent an afternoon exploring the "old city," the highlight of which was a visit to the beautiful Basilique Notre-Dame de Montreal. It had a stunning interior -- perhaps the most beautiful church interior I've seen. I forgot my camera, but here is a nice shot I found elsewhere.
The next afternoon, I explored the Musée des beaux-arts de Montréal. They have a nice little representative collection -- Monet, Rembrandt, Picasso, Boucher, Renoir, Cezanne, etc.
I then hiked up the Royal Mountain (Mont Real in old French) -- the hill in the middle of the city from which it derives its name. Great view of the city (and my face, I might add).
360 DegreesBy the way, if you are ever in Quebec, be sure to order some Poutin -- french fries, cheese curd, and gravy. Yummy stuff -- "quintessential Canadian comfort food."
Friday, March 27, 2009
Warnicks go semi-vegetarian [Bryan]
I've long resisted the arguments of the various vegetarians I know. Vegetarianism seemed to go hand-in-hand with a style of elitist, latte liberalism that I don't like. Ellie and I were talking the other day, though, and we've decided to substantially cut down on our meat consumption. The number of reasons became too long to ignore. Here are the reasons:
(1) Economic: Meat is expensive. We could save money cutting down.
(2) Health: Meat isn't very good for you; vegetables are.
(3) Ethical: Factor farms, where most meat comes from, are still fairly cruel places. I am not convinced that animals have a "right to life," but I do think they have a right not to suffer.
(4) Religious: The LDS Word of Wisdom suggests that meat should be used "sparingly," while the Bible clearly contains a vegetarian ideal (pdf). It is time to take this seriously.
(5) Environmental: The meat industry is a leading contributor to global warming, water use, and deforestation. (Not that I am convinced that we will make any difference in this regard -- large scale reforms are needed for that, not personal virtue.)
(6) Taste: We like vegetarian cooking quite a bit.
So, there you have it. We won't cut meat out of our diet. It plays an important role in moments of family celebration (Sunday dinner, holiday meals, etc.). From now on, though, we want to eat meat with more conscious "thanksgiving" than as an unthinking habit.
(1) Economic: Meat is expensive. We could save money cutting down.
(2) Health: Meat isn't very good for you; vegetables are.
(3) Ethical: Factor farms, where most meat comes from, are still fairly cruel places. I am not convinced that animals have a "right to life," but I do think they have a right not to suffer.
(4) Religious: The LDS Word of Wisdom suggests that meat should be used "sparingly," while the Bible clearly contains a vegetarian ideal (pdf). It is time to take this seriously.
(5) Environmental: The meat industry is a leading contributor to global warming, water use, and deforestation. (Not that I am convinced that we will make any difference in this regard -- large scale reforms are needed for that, not personal virtue.)
(6) Taste: We like vegetarian cooking quite a bit.
So, there you have it. We won't cut meat out of our diet. It plays an important role in moments of family celebration (Sunday dinner, holiday meals, etc.). From now on, though, we want to eat meat with more conscious "thanksgiving" than as an unthinking habit.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Final Four Picks [Bryan]
March is probably one of my favorite months. Nothing beats the NCAA tourney. I can never get any work done the first Thursday of the action, when games begin at 12:00.
I'm sure everyone has been wondering about my Final Four Picks this year. Here they are: UNC, Duke, UConn, Kansas
I think UNC will win it all if they are healthy. If not, I'd go with UConn.
Xavier is my sleeper team.
Utah, OSU, and Illinois will lose in the second round. BYU and USU in the first.
You can take that to the bank.
I'm sure everyone has been wondering about my Final Four Picks this year. Here they are: UNC, Duke, UConn, Kansas
I think UNC will win it all if they are healthy. If not, I'd go with UConn.
Xavier is my sleeper team.
Utah, OSU, and Illinois will lose in the second round. BYU and USU in the first.
You can take that to the bank.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Movie Recommendations [Bryan]
Looking for some good movies? Ellie and I both strongly recommend the following flicks we've seen recently: 1. The Lives of Others -- A German movie about living under the surveillance state in East Germany. 2. Children of Heaven -- An Iranian movie about a boy who loses his sister's shoes. (I know it sounds boring, but it isn't).
Sunday, March 08, 2009
Budget Blogging [Bryan]
A dialogue on the federal budget:
Friend: So, Bryan, have you seen the Obama administration's proposed budget? Looks like a huge move to socialism to me. I warned you about him. He is Karl Marx incarnate.
Bryan: Everything about his budget proposals are in line with his campaign promises. Everything. The energy policy, the health care policy, the education policy, and tax policy...everything. I know actually following through on campaign promises is new to people, but that is exactly what he is doing.
Friend: But he is stealing from the rich to give to the poor. He is raising taxes on the wealthy -- those that invest and innovate. He is a communist I say!
Bryan: This is nonsense on stilts. Absolute and utter nonsense. Below is a listing of the top marginal income tax rate across the decades. The far right column is Obama's proposed increase (up to 39.6%). Even with Obama's tax increase, it is lower than it has been for most of American history. It is lower than most of the time it was under Ronald Reagan (it was a 50% rate for most of Reagan's presidency). Was Ronald Reagan a communist? Was Eisenhower, Truman, or Nixon? Notice that America often prospered under a much heavier tax scheme. People who think this is new or radical simply do not know what they are talking about.
Friend: But is it wise to raise taxes in a recession?
Bryan: No, you're right, it wouldn't be wise. That is why the tax increases (or, more accurately, the expiration of Bush's tax cuts) won't take effect until 2011. If the economy is still in recession at that point, the budget can be revisited.
Friend: Wouldn't a better policy be a spending freeze, like Republican Rep. John Boehner (House minority leader) has recently proposed?
Bryan: No, in fact that would be the absolute worst thing that anyone could enact. A recession occurs because, for whatever reason, people stop spending. Because people aren't spending, nothing can be produced, jobs are lost, and so forth. If the also government cut spending, things would be catastrophic. This is actually what Hoover did (and, to be honest, what FDR did in 1937), both with the terrible consequence we now call the Great Depression. The fact that Boehner proposed such a thing, frankly, shows the intellectual bankruptcy of the Republican party.
Friend: But I've also heard that the Obama budget would reduce the tax deduction that the wealthy can take for charitable giving. Won't that take money away from charities when they need the money the most?
Bryan: First, none of this will happen until 2011. Second, it simply reduces the deduction to rates to those present under Reagan (reduce it to 28 cents on the dollar for people earning over $250,000). Third, it has been calculated that the reduction in charitable would be about 1% -- a small price to pay for a start toward universal health care. Fourth, although this is not Obama's position, I have doubts about the wisdom of this deduction anyway. There is almost no accountability behind the groups that allow you to claim this donation.
Friend: But Obama is really adding to the budget deficit. In the long run, this will cause inflation and dry up funding for private investment.
Bryan: I don't think we should be worried about inflation right now. For one thing, there is no sign of anything approaching inflation. For another, we seem to know how to handle inflation fairly well through monetary policy.
True, there is big deficit over the next couple years. The Obama plan has a deficit of about $1 trillion in 2010 and 2011. Fighting two wars and a huge financial crisis doesn't help things. The deficit is projected to then drop to $533 billion by 2013. This still sounds high, but it is only about 3% of GDP which (I'm told) is fairly manageable. It is not even that big by historical standards.
Let's be clear: we are facing huge problems as a country, problems that every president since Reagan has let fester and get worse. It will take time and money to correct our course.
Remember, a budget deficit cannot be evaluated unless you figure out what you are getting for the deficit and if that spending supports long-term growth. Is the president's projected deficit a good investment or not? If we are making progress in areas like health care, global warming, education, infrastructure, and so forth, we are setting ourselves up well for the future. If we are funding pointless wars, we are not. I haven't read the whole budget, but there are lots of good things therein from what I have read, things that seem like really good investments. In the area of education, for example, there is more money for college education and for preschools. These sorts of investments will make a big difference.
Friend: I see the light now, Bryan. Thanks for enlightening me.
Friend: So, Bryan, have you seen the Obama administration's proposed budget? Looks like a huge move to socialism to me. I warned you about him. He is Karl Marx incarnate.
Bryan: Everything about his budget proposals are in line with his campaign promises. Everything. The energy policy, the health care policy, the education policy, and tax policy...everything. I know actually following through on campaign promises is new to people, but that is exactly what he is doing.
Friend: But he is stealing from the rich to give to the poor. He is raising taxes on the wealthy -- those that invest and innovate. He is a communist I say!
Bryan: This is nonsense on stilts. Absolute and utter nonsense. Below is a listing of the top marginal income tax rate across the decades. The far right column is Obama's proposed increase (up to 39.6%). Even with Obama's tax increase, it is lower than it has been for most of American history. It is lower than most of the time it was under Ronald Reagan (it was a 50% rate for most of Reagan's presidency). Was Ronald Reagan a communist? Was Eisenhower, Truman, or Nixon? Notice that America often prospered under a much heavier tax scheme. People who think this is new or radical simply do not know what they are talking about.
Friend: But is it wise to raise taxes in a recession?Bryan: No, you're right, it wouldn't be wise. That is why the tax increases (or, more accurately, the expiration of Bush's tax cuts) won't take effect until 2011. If the economy is still in recession at that point, the budget can be revisited.
Friend: Wouldn't a better policy be a spending freeze, like Republican Rep. John Boehner (House minority leader) has recently proposed?
Bryan: No, in fact that would be the absolute worst thing that anyone could enact. A recession occurs because, for whatever reason, people stop spending. Because people aren't spending, nothing can be produced, jobs are lost, and so forth. If the also government cut spending, things would be catastrophic. This is actually what Hoover did (and, to be honest, what FDR did in 1937), both with the terrible consequence we now call the Great Depression. The fact that Boehner proposed such a thing, frankly, shows the intellectual bankruptcy of the Republican party.
Friend: But I've also heard that the Obama budget would reduce the tax deduction that the wealthy can take for charitable giving. Won't that take money away from charities when they need the money the most?
Bryan: First, none of this will happen until 2011. Second, it simply reduces the deduction to rates to those present under Reagan (reduce it to 28 cents on the dollar for people earning over $250,000). Third, it has been calculated that the reduction in charitable would be about 1% -- a small price to pay for a start toward universal health care. Fourth, although this is not Obama's position, I have doubts about the wisdom of this deduction anyway. There is almost no accountability behind the groups that allow you to claim this donation.
Friend: But Obama is really adding to the budget deficit. In the long run, this will cause inflation and dry up funding for private investment.
Bryan: I don't think we should be worried about inflation right now. For one thing, there is no sign of anything approaching inflation. For another, we seem to know how to handle inflation fairly well through monetary policy.
True, there is big deficit over the next couple years. The Obama plan has a deficit of about $1 trillion in 2010 and 2011. Fighting two wars and a huge financial crisis doesn't help things. The deficit is projected to then drop to $533 billion by 2013. This still sounds high, but it is only about 3% of GDP which (I'm told) is fairly manageable. It is not even that big by historical standards.
Let's be clear: we are facing huge problems as a country, problems that every president since Reagan has let fester and get worse. It will take time and money to correct our course.
Remember, a budget deficit cannot be evaluated unless you figure out what you are getting for the deficit and if that spending supports long-term growth. Is the president's projected deficit a good investment or not? If we are making progress in areas like health care, global warming, education, infrastructure, and so forth, we are setting ourselves up well for the future. If we are funding pointless wars, we are not. I haven't read the whole budget, but there are lots of good things therein from what I have read, things that seem like really good investments. In the area of education, for example, there is more money for college education and for preschools. These sorts of investments will make a big difference.
Friend: I see the light now, Bryan. Thanks for enlightening me.
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Baby doing well (with pics) [Bryan]
Baby Stephen is almost three weeks old already and doing great. He is sleeping 6-8 hours at night. He usually wakes up once and then goes right back to sleep for 2-4 more hours. This makes for a good night sleep for us! Stephen rarely cries and so far is an ideal baby.
One cute thing: Andrew has taken to reading him stories. Andrew sits next to Stephen, points to a picture and talks about it, and then puts the book right in front of Stephen's face. Picture below.
Stephen had his "baby blessing" in church this Sunday -- I thought of changing his name then to "Spencer Grant" but Ellie would have killed me. Grandma and Grandpa Warnick came out to visit us and it has been wonderful to celebrate with them.
One cute thing: Andrew has taken to reading him stories. Andrew sits next to Stephen, points to a picture and talks about it, and then puts the book right in front of Stephen's face. Picture below.
Stephen had his "baby blessing" in church this Sunday -- I thought of changing his name then to "Spencer Grant" but Ellie would have killed me. Grandma and Grandpa Warnick came out to visit us and it has been wonderful to celebrate with them.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Interested in a slimmer government? [Bryan]
There has been much talk lately about how we can reduce the budget deficit over the long run. Hmmm, let me think...
Friday, February 20, 2009
Triology Meter [Bryan]
.jpg)
This chart measures the "quality" of each installment of a movie trilogy. I can't say I disagree with any of it -- although, to be sure, I haven't seen all the Mad Max movies. Interesting how the third movie is always the worst, and the second is often the best. I wonder why that is.
Monday, February 16, 2009
I love charts [Bryan]
To be sure, much of how one reads this chart depends on what is meant by evolution being the "best explanation" of human life. But it was still shocking to me. We Mormons have a huge number of scientists among us, compared to others. We also have scriptural tools and resources that suggest the creation accounts are not to be taken so literally (we have 5 distinct creation accounts, after all, each one different from the last!). And yet, we are more fundamentalist than almost anyone on this issue. What's up with that? Yikes. 
That captures the recent use of the filibuster by the Senate Republicans. Looks like the Republican strategy is this: obstruct anything and hope things get a lot worse. Country first indeed!
Americans seem to think the current health care system just isn't working.Thursday, February 12, 2009
Baby Pictures [Bryan]
Stephen arrives and is rushed to the NICU -- but was released quickly.
Here he is -- doing well now.
Nora is going to be a great big sister...
...and Andrew a great big brother.
Dad with that overwhelmed feeling.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
He has arrived! [Ellie]
Just wanted to announce the birth of our newest little Warnick, Stephen Ray. He was born Tuesday, Feb. 10 at 5:39 a.m. He weighed 9 lbs. and a little bit and was 20 3/4 inches long. Just like I'd hoped, I went into labor myself--for the first time. I arrived at the hospital dilated to a 7! My water even broke!
Things continued to be exciting, though, and Stephen had to come out via emergency C-section. He was big, transverse, and distressed. Fortunately, all is well now.
More details and pictures to come.
Things continued to be exciting, though, and Stephen had to come out via emergency C-section. He was big, transverse, and distressed. Fortunately, all is well now.
More details and pictures to come.
Sunday, February 08, 2009
Recent pictures [Bryan]
Due date is tomorrow!
After church
Andrew got a toolbox for Christmas, along with safety glasses.Mitt is (probably) wrong [Bryan]
Apparently, Mitt Romney has been in the news again lately talking about the alleged benefits of tax cuts as economic stimulus. Normally, I would ignore this, but I know a lot of people who seem to respect his opinion. Well, here is a reading list for Mitt:
1. Steven Pearlstein (Washington Post business columnist) explaining the rationale for spending as stimulus in clear, concise, and accessible language.The verdict? Mitt's analysis seems to go against what most economists are saying about stimulus. We need spending for stimulus, nearly everyone agrees that we need new infrastructure to stay competitive, so why not just do it?
2. The much-discussed congressional testimony of Mark Zandi (pdf) of economy.com -- see particularly page five for a comparison of the types of stimulus. Most tax cuts, he concludes, are ineffective as stimulus.
3. Analysis from the non-partisan Tax Policy Center. Doubts about most forms of tax cuts as stimulus are expressed here. Their helpful chart of the stimulative effect of the tax cut and spending provisions in the House and Senate plans are here -- complete with A-F grades.
4. Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman on the myths of the stimulus debate. See Kurgman also here and here. Krugman is a partisan, to be sure, and you can find Nobel Laureates disagreeing about these things, but Krugman seems to have been right about a lot of issues from the beginning.
5. Criticism from the Economic Policy Institute relating to the regrettable Senate "compromise" bill that increases largely ineffective tax cuts and reduces much needed spending in things like schools, research, state aid, etc.
6. On the nearly unanimous public support for new infrastructure spending.
Friday, February 06, 2009
Naming our baby [Bryan]
Ellie and I have had a difficult time naming our new baby (due date Feb. 9). Nothing seems to match right. We've played around with many names: Stephen Ray Warnick, Geoffry Bryan Warnick, and so forth. We are not entirely happy with what we've thought of.
My dad recently gave us a good idea, though. Some of you might know that I recently received a grant from the Spencer Foundation. It is a small, but prestigious award, and it may very well help me get tenure someday. We were very happy to receive a Spencer grant.
Now, every month Dad puts out a family newsletter and asks us by email what news we want to contribute. On my list of news items from our side of the family, I put down simply "Spencer Grant" remembering that Dad and I had talked earlier about the award. I was proud of it, and I wanted the family to know the exciting news. Apparently, though, Dad forgot about our earlier conversation, got confused about what I meant, and wrote in the newsletter that we had apparently decided to name our baby........Spencer Grant.
It has a nice ring to it actually.
My dad recently gave us a good idea, though. Some of you might know that I recently received a grant from the Spencer Foundation. It is a small, but prestigious award, and it may very well help me get tenure someday. We were very happy to receive a Spencer grant.
Now, every month Dad puts out a family newsletter and asks us by email what news we want to contribute. On my list of news items from our side of the family, I put down simply "Spencer Grant" remembering that Dad and I had talked earlier about the award. I was proud of it, and I wanted the family to know the exciting news. Apparently, though, Dad forgot about our earlier conversation, got confused about what I meant, and wrote in the newsletter that we had apparently decided to name our baby........Spencer Grant.
It has a nice ring to it actually.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)