Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of ...

Links for 2009-11-06 [del.icio.us]

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:00:00 PST

Ford's Main Problem: The UAW's Crippling Job Classifications and Work Rules
Ford's cars made in Mexico have higher quality ratings than their cars made in the US.

Links for 2009-11-05 [del.icio.us]

Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:00:00 PST

More Steps Towards a European Style Corporate State
What Obama thinks of you if you aren't in a Union.
Dislike 0.2 Adds a Disapproving Dislike Button to Facebook [Downloads]
Revisiting the Achievements of the Veterans Health Administration
CBO report on the VHA

Links for 2009-11-03 [del.icio.us]

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:00:00 PST

Top 10 Apps that Boost Your Media Center
This one is for me - tools to fiddle with all my media. Why can't things just work?
Health Care Reform Bill To Allow Coverage For “Prayer Treatments”
Who cares about separation of church and state? This is absurd even without constitutionality questions.

Links for 2009-11-01 [del.icio.us]

Sun, 01 Nov 2009 23:00:00 PST

Florida’s Public Option | The Beacon
Florida provides a preview on what will inevitably become of any 'public option'

Links for 2009-10-31 [del.icio.us]

Sun, 01 Nov 2009 00:00:00 PDT

Will the public plan have higher premiums than private insurance?
CBO: The public option will be more expensive than private insurance. #hcr #tlot

Links for 2009-10-30 [del.icio.us]

Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:00:00 PDT

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_hcr_complete_summary.html
Summary of the Healthcare bill - 11 pages. yay!
GAO report: Millions in fraud, drug abuse clogs Medicaid - USATODAY.com
Medicaid paid for prescriptions written for 1,800 dead patients

Links for 2009-10-28 [del.icio.us]

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:00:00 PDT

090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf (application/pdf Object)
All about those supposed green jobs

Regulation Theater

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 03:57:00 +0000

Bruce Schneier introduced, to me, the concept of security theater. The idea that much of what we see in terms of ‘security’ – TSA, Homeland Security, etc – gives us the illusion that something is ‘being done’ to make us more secure, but in reality does nothing – or at worst – makes us less secure.

I have grown to understand that regulation does much the same thing. And this has nothing to do with “government bad, markets good.” This is true because written rules are brittle, vague and unable to adapt to fluid situations.

I work for an organization that is bound by PCI guidelines – a private consortium of credit card providers that create security rules for companies that accept credit cards. (I told you that this wasn’t an anti-government screed.)

The concept behind the guidelines are well intentioned. Credit card companies are liable for losses due to the theft of credit card companies. Unfortunately, they don’t have control over the entire transaction. Retailers accept and store credit card numbers and have been one of the primary source for theft over the years.

But I can tell you with absolute certainty that these rules are not making retailers more secure. We spend a lot of time and money so that we can pass the audits. But little of this activity is actually making it less likely that credit cards can be stolen.

This isn’t to say that none of their rules should be followed – quite the contrary – most of them are simply common sense. But, some of them are:

a) Simply not applicable in our environment – but the rules do not distinguish between risk and no risk, they say that you must do X

b) Less risky than other holes in the environment. Every company has limited funds that they can spend on security (security is always a trade off between costs and benefits) and if we have a hole Y that has a 10% chance of loss and one Z that has a 1% chance of loss we will ignore Y in favor of Z if PCI hasn’t addressed Y.

The PCI – or any regulator for that matter – simply cannot know the details of every environment. We have a pretty good idea what our risks are, but we can’t address them because we are too busy engaging in the theater of making PCI think its all OK.

If the card issuers really want the retailers to take the risks seriously they need to create the incentives for us to really care. Make a retailers partially responsible for a breach. Let us decide where the risks and rewards are – if we have skin in the game we are going to be much more successful than you trying to guess what is likely going to be a problem.

This is true for other areas as well – don’t create rigid rules like SOX & HIPAA with rules that don’t actually address the problem you trying to solve. Make the failures expensive and the perpetrators culpable. The results will be far more successful.

Technorati Tags: regulation,economics

POSTSCRIPT: Even knowing how many holes there are in most companies I fell safe using a credit card at almost any company. The breaches require several steps of compromise and are unlikely more often than not. Not impossible – but improbable.

Is This Called Reverse Rescission?

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 04:09:00 +0000

My father-in-law passed away early this spring after a very long, very painful battle with cancer. The last 6 months or so of his life was spent in a cancer clinic receiving chemo treatments 2 or 3 times per week.

I can say pretty definitely that medicine prolonged his life, I have a really hard time deciding whether it was worth it – but those aren’t really conversations you can have with anyone can you?

After he passed away his wife spent months going through all of the medical bills trying to make sense of them. He typically took care of these things, but those last two years were really tough and I think that he was getting a bit addled.

It took her awhile – maybe three months – to organize all of the bills and get them filed for payment. But she finally completed that herculean task. And then the worst happened. The claims came back one by one with DENIED written across the top.

Not only had my mother-in-law lost her husband of almost forty years but the insurance that they had been counting on to cover hundreds-of-thousands of dollars was being denied to her. Needless to say she was more than a little distressed.

To many of you this comes as no surprise – in fact you were probably expecting this outcome as soon as you started reading. To the family, this was completely unexpected.

So she called the insurance company to find out why all of the claims were being denied. It turns out that my father-in-law had changed his coverage about two years ago. He changed that coverage to the most basic coverage that Illinois law allows.

Needless to say that the minimum coverage doesn’t cover extensive chemotherapy, frequent doctor visits, huge regimes of drugs and specialists that were used very liberally to keep the man alive.

I doubt that this is what he had intended to do. Like I said, he was very sick – and very proud. Too proud to turn the increasingly burdensome task of handling medical bills to his wife or anyone else in the family. His wife felt the same way.

So she called the insurance company and pled her case. Needless to say they were sympathetic to her story. They had signed documents, the law and a case history of at least two years on their side. My father-in-law did not have – nor did he pay for – insurance coverage that would pay for this massive set of bills.

But she never gave up. She kept calling different departments at different levels of responsibility until someone finally relented. Whether it was to get her to leave them alone or because they were persuaded that it was simply illogical that a very sick man would voluntarily cancel insurance that were paying for services that he was already using I don’t know.

But in the end they agreed to cover over $200K of bills – minus the missed premium payments.

Keep this in mind the next time you hear that all insurance companies simply drop coverage as soon as their customers get expensive. I’m claiming that this practice is wide spread. After all companies don’t stay in business if they simply give money away to everyone that asks for it. But they aren’t necessarily the cold-hearted, money-grabbing bastards that they are often portrayed to be.

Technorati Tags: healthcare

How Free-Marketers Can Win the Healthcare Debate

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 00:58:00 +0000

It’s simple – make the following proposal:

Eliminate tax preferences for employer-provided healthcare.
Allow individuals to purchase health insurance under a federal charter bypassing state laws limiting competition and choice.
Expand the role that nurse practitioners have in providing care.

If that bill does not result in lower health care spending and a reduction of the number of uninsured (controlled for people eligible for welfare but don’t sign up and illegal immigrants) then they would pass some pre-determined single payer plan.

Heck, the plan could be written directly into the bill with a sunset clause. Its time politicians put their money where their mouth is – make a bet on which system will work and end the stupid debate.

Technorati Tags: healthcare,politics,free market

Propaganda Anyone?

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 01:09:00 +0000

Go read this and come back – I’ll wait.

You didn’t follow the link – try again. My comment isn’t going to make any sense until you read it.

You didn’t listen, whatever.

Wait a minute - things got SO bad that he had to quit his practice and at no time prior to that point he thought maybe a blood test would tell him what was wrong? A blood test that would potential mean that he wouldn’t lose everything?

Or that selling his Porsche might pay for the blood test before things got so bad he was destitute?

How does this story even pass the smell test? Oh wait, anecdotal terror stories are what amounts to honest discussion these days.

Technorati Tags: healthcare,stupidity

Profit Opportunity

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 23:59:00 +0000

Fiscally conservative/socially liberal folks seem to be disenchanted with Obama.

President Obama is exceeding all their fears on fiscal and economic issues. After promising a “net spending cut” during the campaign and denouncing “the most fiscally irresponsible administration in history,” he has sent federal spending and the deficit soaring into the stratosphere.

Meanwhile, he’s not delivering what some of his voters hoped for on social issues. No gay marriage, even as Bill Clinton, Dick Cheney, conservative superlawyer Ted Olson, and the legislature of crusty New Hampshire sign on.

No end to the drug war, even though he’s the third president in a row to have acknowledged using drugs. He even mocked a question about drug legalization at his online town hall. (“Dude, we elected that guy, what’s up with that?” is Reason editor Matt Welch’s summary of the blogosphere’s reaction.) No pullout from Iraq.
So once again fiscally conservative, socially liberal voters are starting to wonder if they made a bad bargain.

Independents who turned against the Republicans are likely to become equally disillusioned with Obama, and there’s already some evidence of that in the polls. Support for “smaller government with fewer services” has risen in the ABC News/Washington Post poll, and independents prefer it by 61 to 35 percent, a margin three times as large as a year ago. The number of people who see Obama as an “old-style tax and spend Democrat” has risen by 11 percentage points.

In a USA Today poll, a majority oppose Obama’s health care efforts and 59 percent say he’s spending too much. In another ABC/Washington Post poll, only 25 percent “strongly approve” of his health care plans, and 33 percent strongly disapprove. His honeymoon may turn out to be as passionate, yet brief, as Britney Spears’ Las Vegas marriage.

It’s hard out here for a fiscally conservative, socially liberal voter. But at least there’s always the other party to try again.

“Well, duh” is the best response that I can think of. Of course the Democrats aren’t going to give this electorate what they want. Neither are the Republicans. There is a true opportunity for a third way to take advantage of the situation – who is going to step up? I don’t think it’s the LP.

HatTip: Below the Beltway

Technorati Tags: libertarian,politics

Libertarian Prospects for Office

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 16:16:00 +0000

Underneath the Beltway has an interesting post on the impact of the Barr Presidential run on long term Libertarian Party prospects for relevance.

with the selection of Bob Barr as it’s nominee, the Libertarian Party received more mainstream media news coverage than at any other point in it’s history. And it was specifically because of who the candidate was. Not only was it due to the fact that there was no small degree of media fascination with the idea of a former Republican Congressman (and not just any Congressman, but one who had led the Clinton Impeachment drive) was running as a third-party candidate, it was also due to the fact that Ron Paul’s candidacy had brought attention to libertarian ideas, and the LP had selected a candidate that was both media- and politically savvy. It was, as many observed at the time, a smart choice for the LP

As long as the LP keeps embracing an all-or-nothing approach to policy they will continue to be marginal fringe has-beens.

Too many people see too many libertarian ideas as wacky, especially from a policy standpoint.

The only way that a libertarian-like party can ever gain any relevance is to approach marginal changes to mainstream views.

Run on a platform that takes the best of the right and the best of the left, perhaps throw in something that is new. But adopt something too radical and no one will take them seriously.

What they really need to do is adopt a populist rhetoric around libertarian ideals. Denounce corporate welfare. Frame regulation as monopoly enhancing. Create villains that can be rallied around. But that isn't every going to happen because most LPers are nutjobs.

Saving Money on Obamacare is a Pipe Dream

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 23:43:00 +0000

If you want to know why Obamacare will never reduce spending on healthcare you don’t have to look any farther than California.

Medi-Cal doctors, meanwhile, this year have managed to roll back a $1.1-billion cut in their reimbursements. A federal appeals court declared illegal a 10% cut in what physicians are paid by Medi-Cal, the government healthcare program for the poor, that was implemented in July 2008. The court ruled the cut would drive doctors out of the program, endangering the ability of patients to get care and thereby violating minimum federal standards for the program.

Once the government gets involved decisions aren’t made on the basis of common sense, logic or even what is best for Everyone (whoever that person is).

Decisions are based on politics and the temperament of the bureaucrat or judge that is sitting on the other side of the bench (or 40 page form or the impersonal telephone line).

I can’t wait.

Technorati Tags: politics,California,healthcare

Missing the Point

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 23:59:00 +0000

I think that Ezra is missing the point.

The likelier outcome, I think, is that Congress will dismantle the filibuster when it realizes that the filibuster is making it less relevant. If you look back at the financial crisis, the lead response came from the Federal Reserve, because everyone understood that Congress couldn’t move quickly enough. If you look at global warming, there’s considerable pessimism that the Senate will be able to pass cap-and-trade, and many expect the Environmental Protection Agency to simply embark on its own campaign to regulate carbon emissions. If you look at health care, ideas like the Federal Health Board or the Independent Medicare Advisory Committee are an explicit effort to entrust the continual process of health-care reform to a more agile body than the Congress.

The Senate loves the filibuster because it absolves them from actually doing anything. When nothing gets done they are allowed to demonize the ‘evil opposition’ with the understanding that they have delegated the actual responsibility for policy making to the administration anyway.

Technorati Tags: politics,congress

Benefits of National Healthcare

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 01:54:00 +0000

I’m beginning to think that it may be better to just take the plunge and commit to a single payer plan.

The alternative seems to be to slowly chip away at anything resembling a market and with that quality slowly declines, prices slowly rise and people slowly become less satisfied.

While single payer won’t make everything go to shit overnight it will certainly happen faster than the slow erosion that we are currently experiencing.

Bite the bullet, jump off the cliff, make it worse so that it can get better.

If nothing else, at least I’ll know wtf is going to happen – the suspense is killing me.

Technorati Tags: healthcare

Opportunity of a Lifetime

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 00:17:00 +0000

You would think that this would be good news for someone.

Since Obama was inaugurated, not much has changed in the political party landscape at the state level — the Democratic Party continues to hold a solid advantage in party identification in most states and in the nation as a whole. While the size of the Democratic advantage at the national level shrunk in recent months, this has been due to an increase in independent identification rather than an increase in Republican support.

Most of the Big-L Libertarians are nutjobs - but isn't this a prime opportunity for some third party or independent?

I've never understood why someone hasn't been able to cash in on the "all politicians are the same" sentiment. Maybe I’ll start the None-Of-The-Above Party.

Technorati Tags: libertarian,politics

Perhaps politicians don’t like to be reminded that they have to follow the law too

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 01:17:00 +0000

Can someone please explain to me why the US is taking such a hard line on Honduras?

[Former Honduran Ambassador Roberto] Flores … said he believed Zelaya's ouster was legal because the Supreme Court had ordered his arrest and Congress voted to remove him from office. However, the soldiers flew Zelaya out of the country instead of turning him over for prosecution, in a move that even Honduran military lawyers have said was illegal but necessary.

The US responds to the unanimity of the Honduran official in deposing Zelaya (due to his illegal and unconstitutional actions) by revoking the visas of the new government officials.

So, the Congress, Supreme Court and the military were all behind removing Zelaya from office and the US is opposed to this because…?

Technorati Tags: politics,Honduras

Obama’s Honduras Principles

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:12:00 +0000

Obama has insisted that Zelaya be restored to power, but "not because we agree with him," he told an audience in Russia. "We do so because we respect the universal principle that people should choose their own leaders, whether they are leaders we agree with or not."

So does this also mean that we should stick with leaders that don’t, you know, obey the law and the other ruling principles of the nation?

Or does the fact that they were elected ‘by the people’ mean that they have cart blanche to do anything they want?

Technorati Tags: Honduras,politics

Honduras: The Most Important News That No One is Reading

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 01:58:00 +0000

Let’s just parse this bit by bit:

Ousted President Manuel Zelaya appealed to the Honduran military to return its loyalty to him

I don’t know about you, but the military of any nation should never be loyal to a person. Never. Under any circumstance.

I am the commander of the armed forces…

Um, not any more.

…elected by the people…

and removed by the Supreme court, Congress and the military.

…and I ask the armed forces to comply with the order to open the airport…

you don’t have the power to issue orders anymore.

Honduras' new government has vowed to arrest Zelaya for 18 alleged criminal acts including treason and failing to implement more than 80 laws approved by Congress since taking office in 2006.

Yet the international ‘community’ is declaring solidarity with the thug. Wonder why? I’m guessing that they don’t like to be reminded that they are bound by the laws of their own nation.

Despite a Supreme Court ruling, Zelaya had also pressed ahead with a referendum on whether to hold an assembly to consider changing the constitution…But instead of …trying to defeat his referendum idea at the ballot box

Really AP? He was willfully committing treason (by definition of their constitution) and they should just stand by and try to defeat him at the ‘ballot box’?

Supposedly law abiding leaders should be celebrating the bloodless removal of a lawless thug. Instead they label the action a coup and condemn the other leaders of Honduras for preventing an authoritarian prick install himself for life.

Technorati Tags: politics,Honduras

Assuming that X is evil, anything that they do is wrong

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:39:00 +0000

The EU has been complaining, basically, forever, that Microsoft bundling a web browser with Windows is anti-competitive.

Rightly or wrongly, Microsoft has decided to decouple Internet Explorer from Windows 7 in Europe.

So, how does the EU respond? By complaining that Microsoft doesn't give users an option of which browser to use.

the Commission's contention this morning is that Microsoft's decision does not provide a remedy for that infraction: essentially, that giving the consumer no Web browser still gives that consumer no choice.

Now that the EU has finally browbeat Microsoft into doing what it wanted - they don't like the result. In short, since Microsoft is evil whatever decisions they make must be wrong.

They want to force Microsoft to bundle other companies products into their software. This is arrogant meddling at its best.

Remember – the Models Always Trump Reality

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 01:07:00 +0000

A scientist has reported that wind speeds have declined as much as 10% across the US.

Gavin Schmidt – Global Warming Enthusiast – says that this simply cannot be since the climate models do not show an effect on wind speed from global warming.

If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. It is SO much easier than changing your mind.

Technorati Tags: global warming,politics

Organ Markets: An Ethical Perspective – Part III

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 05:22:00 +0000

You should probably read Part I and Part II before continuing here.

Next we will consider the complex case of the utilitarian perspective. The utilitarian perspective will attempt to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people. The first thing to consider is whether or not a market in human organs would legitimately increase the supply of organs available for transplant. Evidence in India appears to show evidence that there is a market for individuals wishing to sell kidneys “it was estimated that nearly $10 million dollars had exchanged hands for 4,000 transplants in Bombay alone” (Calandrillo, 2004, p. 88).

One concern that is frequently raised is that a market would allow “rich patients buy up all available organs, and leave poorer patients without the chance of a transplant” (Volokh, 2007, p.1839). This may be true, but to some degree is already happening as hundreds of Americans fly abroad each year to purchase organs (Calandrillo, 2004, p. 87). The current ban domestically merely means that the richest of the rich resort to buying organs from the world’s most destitute. Additionally, the long term care of chronic organ failure can be up to $100,000 more expensive than organ transplant costs (Volokh, 2007, p.1839). Therefore, as long as organs can be procured for less than amount it is less expensive to pay for a transplant than to provide the long term care. This would provide considerable incentives for the providers of healthcare, such as Medicaid or insurance providers, to cover some or all of the costs of purchasing organs.

This analysis shows that recipients would certainly benefit from a market in human organs, the question of donors isn’t quite as clear. The large sum of money that they would receive is certainly advantageous. Depending on their income and the amount paid for the organ donors could feasibly be compensated the equivalent of 50% or 75% of their yearly income. This type of compensation would potentially dramatically improve their quality of life, at least over the short term.

One objection to the sale of organs on utilitarian grounds is that the most desperate, tempted by the money, are unwittingly putting their health at risk. There is some evidence that the health risk of donating an organ is quite small. For example, donating a kidney carries a less than 2% chance of death or complications (Volokh, 2007, p. 1841). It is also quite difficult, from an external point of view, to accurately judge the cost benefit analysis required to determine if the health risks outweigh the compensation.

In order to definitively answer the question as to whether organ sales are ethical from a utilitarian perspective the following questions must be answered. Does a market for organs increase the total supply of organs or does material compensation merely erode the supply of altruistic donation? Will a market in organs unfairly favor wealthy recipients over the poor? Or can mechanisms be put into place to ensure that the relatively poor have access to an organ market through charity or government subsidy? Finally, can limits be put into place to ensure that individuals do not sell organs due to desperation or ignorance? This could potentially be resolved by instituting counseling, waiting periods or prohibiting the extremely poor, young or incompetent from participating in the sale of organs.

While legalizing a market in the sale of organs to overcome donor shortages isn’t the only approach it is one that is advocated and derided by many that study the issue. Opponents frequently rely on objections that such a practice is unethical, but when reflecting on such a claim one must ask ‘From what perspective?’ It is true that a categorical imperative analysis of the ethical question will lead to an unethical result if ones values are predisposed to finding the sale of human body as unpleasant. However, alternative approaches to inquiry offer a very different result. An egoistic analysis finds no ethical dilemma while a utilitarian investigation hinges on the answers to some key questions that would protect the most susceptible to harm by such a policy.

__________________

References

Calandrillo, S. (2004). Cash for kidneys? Utilizing incentives to end America's organ shortage [Electronic version]. George Mason Law Review, 13, pp. 69-133.

Delmonico, F. L. & Kahn, J. P. (2004). The consequences of public policy to buy and sell organs for transplantation. American Journal of Transplantation, 4(2), pp. 178-180.
doi: 10.1046/j.1600-6143.2003.00370.x

National Kidney Foundation. (2003, February 1). Financial incentives for organ donation. Retrieved June 2, 2009, from http://www.kidney.org/news/newsroom/positionpaper03.cfm

O’Reilly, K. B. (2008, July 7). AMA meeting: Delegates seek to change law on organ donor incentives. American Medical News. Retrieved from http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/07/07/prsm0707.htm

The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. Data. Available from http://www.optn.org/data/

Volokh, E. (2007). Medical self-defense, prohibited experimental therapies, and payment for organs [Electronic version]. Harvard Law Review, 120, pp. 1813-1846.

Technorati Tags: economics,ethics,school

Organ Markets: An Ethical Perspective – Part II

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 05:16:00 +0000

You can read Part I here. Please note that all references will be included in Part III.

In an article pondering the sale of organs Delmonico and Kahn (2004) state “[i]t is an unethical approach to shift the tragedy from those waiting for organs to those exploited into selling them” (p. 180). Their article, though, doesn’t offer much analysis beyond the claim that it is unethical. This ethical perspective can be described as an categorical imperative or “doing that which is morally consistent with the principles of right and wrong” (G. Gilmore, personal communication, April, 27, 2009). This type of ethical perspective is defined internally, it does not consider the impact to oneself (ethical egoism), the society at large (utilitarianism) or the individuals affected (altruism).

When considering each ethical perspective one should consider the vantage point of each party involved to get a true understanding of the issue. In the case of organ sales there are two key parties to consider – the recipient of the organ and the donor. However, under the view categorical imperative their viewpoints are irrelevant. If the sale of human organs is wrong, the means are wrong regardless of what ends the parties involved are trying to achieve.

Technorati Tags: economics,ethics,school

Organ Markets: An Ethical Perspective – Part I

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 05:13:00 +0000

As some of you may be aware, I am returning to school to finish what I shouldn’t have stopped many moons ago.

It kinda sucks, dumb classes with economically illiterate professors all around.

Anyway, for my current class (on leadership) I have to write a paper analyzing some social problem from several ethical perspectives.

Being the good market capitalist I am – I knew that it would have something to do with markets and would probably be something that would tweak my liberal prof just a little. So I chose to look at open market sale of organs for transplantation.

I thought that it was a pretty good analysis of the issue so I thought I would publish it online. It’s a little long for a blog post, so I’m going to post it in a couple pieces. Here’s the kickoff:

-note: references will be included in Part III-

There are currently over 100,000 individuals on a waiting list organ for transplant while only 4500 transplants had taken place over the first two months of the year (The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, n.d.). Last year less than 28,000 transplants took place, over 48,000 patients were added to the waiting list and over 6,400 people died.

Last year the American Medical Association [AMA] proposed lobbying Congress to allowing pilot studies of payments for organ donation (O’Reilly, 2008). Economists will sometimes go much further claiming “the law banning human organ sales has the unintended and unfortunate consequence of restricting supply”, the clear message being that legalizing such sales would resolve the current shortages that are experienced (Calandrillo, 2004).

On the other side of the issue, the National Kidney Foundation [NKF] issued a very strong statement denouncing any approach to compensate donors stating:

Offering direct or indirect economic benefits in exchange for organ donation is inconsistent with our values as a society. Any attempt to assign a monetary value to the human body, or body parts, either arbitrarily, or through market forces, diminishes human dignity. By treating the body as property, in the hope of increasing organ supply, we risk devaluating the very human life we seek to save. (2003)

The NKF reaction is not uncommon; many people may have such a visceral response to the thought of allowing someone the ability to sell part of their body, perhaps claiming that it is unethical. This paper will evaluate what ethical perspective would lead one to believe that the sale of organs is unethical and investigate whether alternative perspectives can lead to a different ethical analysis.

Part II – Part III

Technorati Tags: economics,ethics,school

I Wish You Would Stop Saying That

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 01:10:00 +0000

In an AP article describing “a defining moment for American capitalism”, in other words the nationalization of GM, they claim that “the nation's severest economic crisis since the Great Depression” is at fault for no one wanting to sink any more money into GM.

First, this isn’t any worse than recessions that occurred in the 80s and 70s for certain – stop saying that this is such a catastrophe. The only thing that is catastrophic is the government intervention into the market.

Second, companies that are well run are having no trouble getting capital. GM can’t because they are poorly run and have no honest hope of turning around without shedding some liabilities.

Finally, the auto czar Steve Rattner says that the government will give up control of GM when it ‘succeeds’ - "The outcomes are driven heavily by things that are outside our control, particularly market conditions, car sales, overall economy and obviously the performance of this company"

Anyone want to give an over/under on when this is going to occur? I’m willing to put on over on just about any number.

Technorati Tags: GM,bankrupcy,politics,economics,Obama

Un-PC Question of the Day

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Wed, 27 May 2009 23:45:00 +0000

So, let me get this right. We can’t have vouchers because parents aren’t smart enough to send their kids to a good school.

The economic ‘crisis’ was caused by evil banks selling houses to people that we too dumb to know that they couldn’t afford the house in the first place.

We must have universal health care (whatever that means) because people aren’t intelligent enough to listen to the advise that their doctors give them and come to their own conclusion.

We must ban prostitution, drugs, cigarettes, firearms, gambling all because people are stupid.

In short, we must give the government power to control our lives because we are simply too dumb and inept to do it for ourselves.

Why then do we allow these same ignoramuses to vote for the same bureaucrats that we intend to run our lives? Or even worse, let these same morons actually create laws for themselves?

If I agree that the public at large is really stupid can I suggest that you need to pass a basic test of intelligence to get into a poll booth?

Technorati Tags: politics

Business Lesson in Four Panels

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Wed, 20 May 2009 15:15:00 +0000

Why Do Countries Trade With One Another?

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Wed, 20 May 2009 01:51:00 +0000

Such was the question on my 2nd grade daughter’s homework assignment.

The correct answer is, of course, countries don’t trade with each other – people do.

That answer, of course, would have gotten her an incorrect answer once the economically illiterate teacher got their hands on it.

What to do with the brainwashing that my kids receive with a public school education? Should I attempt to augment their education and risk confusing them with contradictory information? Or more plausibly, get them pissed off at me for insinuating that their teachers are stupid morons that don’t know anything about how the real world works?

Or should I try to infuse them with critical thinking skills and hope that one day, when I start spouting libertarian gobbledygook that some of it will seep in?

I’m thinking that there isn’t a good answer.

Technorati Tags: education,economics,family

I'm sure we will be waiting for some time before this fairy dust becomes real gold

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Tue, 12 May 2009 21:38:00 +0000

Isn’t this the plan that got McCain skewered pre-election?

Senators are considering limiting — but not eliminating — the tax-free status of employer-provided health benefits to help pay for President Barack Obama's plan to provide coverage to 50 million uninsured Americans.

The reality is that politicians are liars – they will give you treats with one hand and pick your pocket with the other.

When government shows up “Hi, we’re with the government and we are here to help” keep both hands on your wallet because they don’t think the money in there is really yours anyway.

And one more thing – if any version of this really passes:

Baucus suggested that the benefit could be limited by taxing health insurance provided to high-income individuals, although he did not specify at what income levels. He also said that plans offering rich benefits — for example, no co-payments or deductibles — might be taxed once their value exceeded a yet-to-be-determined threshold.

Anyone voting for the bill will be immediately ousted. Gold-plated insurance plans are the golden calf of benefit packages and are highly prized as such. There will be a revolution the instant government tries to take them away.

Technorati Tags: healthcare,politics,fantasyland

I Didn’t Realize That the AP Was a Republican Shill

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Tue, 12 May 2009 21:28:00 +0000

But I’m certain that many on the left will see it as so:

[In 2037], the annual Social Security taxes collected would be enough to pay for three-fourths of current benefits through 2083. To tap the trust fund, the government would have to increase borrowing or raise taxes because Social Security bonds exist only as bookkeeping entries. (emphasis added)

The government is running out of free money by way of borrowing. At some point it is going to become quite costly to borrow more (if it is even possible). What happens then?

The day that the lie that SS & Medicare pay for themselves is coming closer and the left is going to be apoplectic trying to figure out how to blame everyone but government failure on the problem.

So government can’t run the budget that it has. It can’t run the health program that it has. It is spending money like a drunk sailor on a 12-day meth binge. And it wants to continue to do more of the same while telling everyone that will listen that they can make everything better while only making those evil rich people pay.

The reckoning is coming, I don’t think it will be pretty for any of us.

Technorati Tags: politics,social security,medicare,budget

Best Idea I've Heard in a Year

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:21:00 +0000