Good morning.
- Humor and the healthcare discussion.
- For the google reader/firefox audience.
- Yes, law and society are entangled in a complicated dance.
- Abortion and public healthcare.
- Middle east and missile defense.
- A monk of the Sketis remembered.
- Pre-soviet Russia … some history.
- Advice for conservatives regarding public healthcare.
- Hmm, I’d counter that racism is a conservative thing inasmuch as it is a human and conservatives are human.
- Yet another liberal that needs to read the Petraeus COIN manual.
- Mr Obama says he wants to lower the abortion rate.
- Reflecting on Mr Obama’s Africa sojourn.
- Mr Obama and corn.
- But … does it have a name? How about Bob?
- Left/Right and a cultural comparison.
- At life’s end … the upside.
- Cricket races.
- Afghanistan.
Mr Obama says he wants to lower the abortion rate.
I raised this issue (again) in the comments but I’ll streamline it here:
Abortion = cheap $300
Child Birth = expensive $3000 plus
Right now that means there’s a defacto ‘birth penalty’ of $2700. In other words, having an abortion will save you $2700 in medical bills ($3000 – $300)
Universal coverage would eliminate that birth penalty and would likely result in a net decrease of abortion.
The article references a NC stud on the impact of public funding of abortion….but the study has some issues that must be considered:
NC has a special fund to pay for low income abortions. Sometimes that fund, though, runs dry. The study found that when the fund runs dry, childbirth’s jump 20%.
Here’s the problem(s):
1. The fund seems tailor made to produce bad studies. You tell low income women that a fund exists to provide free or low cost abortions. Then at random times you yank it away. Since low income would have the most trouble scratching together $300 quickly to replace the dry fund, they are likely unable to get an abortion until they get too far along in the pregnancy. In the study childbirth rates went up 20%. That would therefore be the *max* increase that subsidized abortion could produce in abortions. In other words, if you wanted to produce as much abortion as possible then giving them away for free would only generate 20% more and that would be among a small portion of the population that is the most income sensitive and more likely to be short term focused.
2. Interestingly the ‘birth penalty’ effect seems to be progressive, not regressive. The very poor can get childbirth paid for by the state. They likewise tend not to own real estate or large assets that can be subject to leins by doctors and hospitals suing for unpaid bills. Beyond the poor though, the situation changes. Even for an upper-middle class family a period of no insurance coverage can cause a lot of financial chaos.
Here’s the nut: If covering a $300 procedure can cause 20% more to opt for it then covering a $3000 procedure must produce a larger effect. Universal coverage including both abortion and child birth, therefore, must cause a net decrease in abortions.
Hmm, I’d counter that racism is a conservative thing inasmuch as it is a human and conservatives are human.
Anecdotally, racism is strongly correlated with conservatism among people I know.
Statistically, it appears that there is a significant correlation between conservatism and opposing racial intermarriage, to take one proxy for racism. (I used the variables RACMAR and POLVIEWS.) Interestingly, I did *not* see a significant correlation between opposing racial intermarriage and being a Republican.
Mr Obama says he wants to lower the abortion rate.
One can work to make something easier to obtain at the same time as working to lower it overall. For example, I support the decriminalization of cocaine while at the same time I would like to lower cocaine usage overall through the support of treatment programs, etc. I think it’s clear that when Obama says he wants to reduce abortions, he’s thinking mostly of reducing unwanted pregnancies, not of forcing women who want abortions to give birth.
Left/Right and a cultural comparison.
Accusing people of blasphemy?! Really? Um, okay there, way to pick an important issue.
Boonton,
I’d bet that the co-pay (or equivalent) for the $3k birth is larger than the $300 (not including future uncovered expenses in the absence of adoption). The increase in abortions might be greater than any increase in births … unless you assume this is a zero sum game … which given the easy access to contraception is not. Or if you game the costs.
I guess part of the issue is this is highly contentious. Consider if there was a significant percentage of the population that practices female circumcision at puberty, which I assume to be a practice you abhor. As a medical procedure would you be less than supportive of the suggestion that your tax money would be supporting this?
JA,
The left’s racism isn’t the racism that they measure so often (and being academics and on the left oddly enough don’t look into it as much). In Europe the accepted racism is against the Serbs. In American left-leaning circles, Catholics, conservatives, and fundamentalists get the treatment. “I didn’t know you were a fundamentalist, you seem such a decent fellow.” “I like conservatives, heck one of my best friends is a conservative.” Replace fundamentalist/conservative/catholic with Black and you’ll realized the attitudes are the same.
Anecdotally it is just the target of the racism that shifts between groups.
Right. But you cannot claim you support the reduction of cocaine by supporting treatment programs, et al and subsidize it’s purchase. And it think the term “forcing” is unfair (or at least yet again a remark directed rightward in general but at me). What suggestion that I’ve made can you interpret as “wishing to force women” to give birth.
I didn’t know that a political ideology is a ‘race’.
As for co-pays, not really relevant. Suppose a policy that pays 90% of the cost and 10% is the copay. Sure a birth will cost you $300 and an abortion will cost you $30. The fact remains without the policy the birth costs a net of $2700 more while with the policy it’s $270 more. You’ve slashed the ‘birth penalty’ 90%.
I guess part of the issue is this is highly contentious. Consider if there was a significant percentage of the population that practices female circumcision at puberty, which I assume to be a practice you abhor. As a medical procedure would you be less than supportive of the suggestion that your tax money would be supporting this?
I suppose I’d rather take fewer circumcisions with some marginal taxpayer support than more with no such support. As I pointed out before, these arguments tend to degenerate into wonk-fests of twiddle over accounting rules whose connection to the real world is questionable.
Left/Right and a cultural comparison.
A rather strained and cherry picked comparison.
Mark,
The left’s racism isn’t the racism that they measure so often (and being academics and on the left oddly enough don’t look into it as much). In Europe the accepted racism is against the Serbs.
Who “accepts” that?
In American left-leaning circles, Catholics, conservatives, and fundamentalists get the treatment.
BS on Catholics, considering a slight majority are themselves “left-leaning.”
“I didn’t know you were a fundamentalist, you seem such a decent fellow.” “I like conservatives, heck one of my best friends is a conservative.” Replace fundamentalist/conservative/catholic with Black and you’ll realized the attitudes are the same.
Be honest, have you ever heard anybody say one of those things?
Anecdotally it is just the target of the racism that shifts between groups.
That is simply untrue. The left is a broad coalition of many races while the right is overwhelmingly white. Liberalism itself involves tolerance and openmindedness, while conservativism often involves pining for the “good old days…” when white men ruled the world and everybody else worked for them.
Right. But you cannot claim you support the reduction of cocaine by supporting treatment programs, et al and subsidize it’s purchase.
Why not? Let’s say it turned out that by giving discounted cocaine to addicts, it would reduce crime and some health problems? Couldn’t I then support that while still supporting the overall reduction of cocaine usage?
And it think the term “forcing” is unfair (or at least yet again a remark directed rightward in general but at me). What suggestion that I’ve made can you interpret as “wishing to force women” to give birth.
Um, allowing localities to outlaw abortion? WTF?
And yes, “conservatism” is not a race, any more than “racism” is. It’s a different thing to dislike someone for their views than it is for their race.
As a medical procedure would you be less than supportive of the suggestion that your tax money would be supporting this?
I notice you’re changing the goal posts here. You’re telling me that this is a really emotional issues for pro-lifers. OK with high emotion issues it sometimes is hard to think rationally. But your assertion was that this policy demonstrates Obama doesn’t really want to reduce the abortion rate. It appears there’s at least equal if not greater reason to believe the policy would lower rather than raise the abortion rate.
Of course human behavior is highly complicated so we won’t really know unless we do it. Even if we do it it would probably be impossible to say what, if any, was the impact. But I think the assertion that Obama is ‘obviously’ being dishonest here has been refuted.
JA,
On Serbian racism in Europe, you ask, “Who “accepts” that?” Apparently just about everybody in Europe.
I’ve seen it quoted in a book. I don’t hang out at left leaning wine and cheese affairs to hear it. You’ve seen the recent discussions on covering. Might I ask you why conservatives and Christians (including fundamentalists) “cover” and disguise their beliefs in Academia and many other left dominated industries if there is not bigotry going on?
You need to stop reading your own propaganda. Classical liberalism involves tolerance and open-mindedness, today’s progressive movement has little in common with classical liberalism. Recall how the vitriol aimed at prominent GOP Blacks and Gay members.
And the color black is just the new color white? On what planet are free drugs going to reduce usage? Look you can pretend it’s going to reduce crime. But you can’t also claim it’s going to reduce use.
And allowing other localities to subsidize it and (duh) you can’t pretend to be imprisoned in a unlocked cell.
So what? Just because you’ll take their votes doesn’t mean you won’t marginalize them.
Boonton,
No. I’m bringing up a side point. I’m not backing down from the claim that subsidizing abortions will increase their practice.
Mark,
On Serbian racism in Europe, you ask, “Who “accepts” that?” Apparently just about everybody in Europe.
Who is that “apparent” to? Do you have some sort of citation or are you just making this up?
I’ve seen it quoted in a book. I don’t hang out at left leaning wine and cheese affairs to hear it.
LOL. Do you get all of your information on liberals from stereotypes and caricatures?
You’ve seen the recent discussions on covering. Might I ask you why conservatives and Christians (including fundamentalists) “cover” and disguise their beliefs in Academia and many other left dominated industries if there is not bigotry going on?
First, we were talking about racism, not “bigotry.” Second, it’s not bigoted to be opposed to, e.g. racism or creationism or homophobia. Maybe conservatives in academia are afraid of being mocked and laughed at for holding ridiculous (and/or evil) views?
You need to stop reading your own propaganda. Classical liberalism involves tolerance and open-mindedness, today’s progressive movement has little in common with classical liberalism.
You’re the one who needs to stop reading propaganda. Today’s progressive movement is the continuation of the movement that brought equal rights to women, blacks, and non-Christians. It is now bringing rights to gays. You are free to oppose our agenda, but don’t say it doesn’t involve tolerance and open-mindedness. That’s just ridiculous.
Recall how the vitriol aimed at prominent GOP Blacks and Gay members.
Um, I don’t think it’s because they’re black or gay, Mark. It’s because they’re black or gay and perceived to be working against the rest of their peoples. Tiny little detail there. The vitriol is aimed at their Republicanism, not their race or orientation.
And the color black is just the new color white? On what planet are free drugs going to reduce usage? Look you can pretend it’s going to reduce crime. But you can’t also claim it’s going to reduce use.
It was a hypothetical. I don’t know if it would reduce usage or not. I don’t think it’s a totally ridiculous idea, though. If it were legal, it would lose some of the allure… and the incentive to make drugs as powerful as possible per weight would disappear. It’s kind of like during prohibition, hard liquor was more popular than beer or wine.
And allowing other localities to subsidize it and (duh) you can’t pretend to be imprisoned in a unlocked cell.
No, but the poor teenaged girl with neither the money nor the car nor the support structure to travel to the next locality might as well be.
So what? Just because you’ll take their votes doesn’t mean you won’t marginalize them.
How do liberals marginalize Catholics?? By nominating them to the Supreme Court? By nominating them (Kerry) for the presidency? Don’t you realize how ridiculous you sound?
No. I’m bringing up a side point. I’m not backing down from the claim that subsidizing abortions will increase their practice.
No you’re just insisting on moving the goal posts around as needed to support a paritsan claim. When the issue is subsidizing abortion, you’ll be happy to assume increase in practice, when it comes to subsidizing an alternative to abortion…suddenly our economic proof sunglasses come out and you’re as blind as a bat.
So what? Just because you’ll take their votes doesn’t mean you won’t marginalize them.
Exactly how have Catholics been ‘marginalized’ by the Obama administration or, say, the Democratic Congress? Is this comparable to, say, the attempts to marginalize Mormonism when Mitt Romney was a Republican candidate?
Speaking of Catholics, why is there a movement on the right to deny communion to left-wing Catholic politicians? If the left marginalizes Catholics then why do such notable politicians on the left show up at the communion rail?
JA,
In a book on political philosophy by Slavoj Zizek.
Tiny detail here, it isn’t just the gays and black’s (respectively) who aim their vitriol. Why would a white liberal aim vitriol at a black GOP member on account of his race? Maybe it’s just an uppity thing.
Basic econ, subsidize and/or lower the price of a commodity (addictive to boot) and it’s use will rise.
Look, I happen to know a Christian evangelical blogger who blogged with his real name. He took his material offline and stopped blogging because he’d realized that a public life as a Christian was materially deleterious to his career … in mathematical physics. Look how irrational De Long was, he would refuse tenure if you were a publicly admitted to be a conservative (“You shouldn’t be in academia”).
I just was having a short discussion with Boonton on badging and covering. I will submit that the need to cover, to hide your identity because showing it will lead to harm in career, et al. My point there was that if you want to deal with covering you have to talk about badging. But I will freely admit that in many if not most cases the need to cover is an indication of prejudice and bigotry.
Boonton,
Is that a serious question or rhetorical? The answer is not that there is a movement “on the right” to deny “those on the left” communion. It’s not about right/left, it’s about abortion and euthanasia. Newsflash, Catholic teaching for just under 2000 years has been against abortion. Now, if the left is closed-tent enough to deny that there might be pro-life leftists then it is a left-wing thing. If not, it isn’t.
Exactly as were Blacks marginalized by the Bush administration, e.g., Condi Rice as Secretary of State.
Your bigotry/racism towards Catholics lies in the negative stereotypes … which continue in actions (like above causing covering et al) when a catholic or evangelical would seek a position in a liberal dominated profession.
Mark,
Tiny detail here, it isn’t just the gays and black’s (respectively) who aim their vitriol. Why would a white liberal aim vitriol at a black GOP member on account of his race? Maybe it’s just an uppity thing.
Do you really believe it’s an “uppity” thing or are you trying to be clever? I genuinely can’t tell. I certainly wouldn’t personally aim vitriol at black Republicans, so I won’t defend those who do (assuming they exist among white Democrats.) I also wouldn’t aim vitriol at gay Republicans, per se, although I probably would at gay Republicans who oppose rights for gays. If you really can’t understand why, think about how you’d feel about a Christian who supported a law making it illegal for Christians to marry.
Look, I happen to know a Christian evangelical blogger who blogged with his real name. He took his material offline and stopped blogging because he’d realized that a public life as a Christian was materially deleterious to his career … in mathematical physics.
And I blog anonymously because a public life as an atheist (and a liberal!) could be materially deleterious to my career… as a software engineer. (I don’t want to give too many details, but let’s just say the military hires a lot of software engineers.) I can’t believe being a Christian would hurt your job as a physicist, though. That’s just bizarre.
Look how irrational De Long was, he would refuse tenure if you were a publicly admitted to be a conservative (”You shouldn’t be in academia”).
I’ve explained to you repeatedly why your characterization of his statement is an outrageous slander.
I just was having a short discussion with Boonton on badging and covering. I will submit that the need to cover, to hide your identity because showing it will lead to harm in career, et al. My point there was that if you want to deal with covering you have to talk about badging. But I will freely admit that in many if not most cases the need to cover is an indication of prejudice and bigotry.
Okay, so you’ll admit that there is bigotry and prejudice against atheists and liberals in my career?
JA,
I’m just guessing but I don’t think that in your accusations that conservatives are racists that you aren’t including me necessarily in that crowd. Just because you would not vitriolize a Black man for being a GOP member (or a gay for being in the GOP) and not be Black (or gay) doesn’t mean that there are not those who do.
And quite as clearly I do not accept your rationalization of his statement …
Yet true. This is today’s academia. Which is in part why I hold the position I do above.
Well, I will certainly agree that you perceive such. I have no knowledge of the military contractor environment and customs. As you remarked above, “That’s just bizarre.” (at least the atheist part).
Mark,
I’m just guessing but I don’t think that in your accusations that conservatives are racists
Never said that.
Just because you would not vitriolize a Black man for being a GOP member (or a gay for being in the GOP) and not be Black (or gay) doesn’t mean that there are not those who do.
Didn’t say there weren’t.
And quite as clearly I do not accept your rationalization of his statement …
It’s not a rationalization. It’s a plain reading. Look, we can settle this right now. Why don’t we just ask him if he thinks conservatives should be denied tenure? I’ll even email him if you promise not to assume he’s lying or changing his stance if he says that he doesn’t believe that and never meant that.
Yet true. This is today’s academia. Which is in part why I hold the position I do above.
I’m very skeptical. I personally know several Orthodox Jews — and it’s very hard to hide or “cover” being Orthodox — who have very successful careers in science and academia. Is it your position that Christians are discriminated against but Orthodox Jews aren’t?
Well, I will certainly agree that you perceive such. I have no knowledge of the military contractor environment and customs. As you remarked above, “That’s just bizarre.” (at least the atheist part).
LOL, really? The military has never synonymized atheism with communism and believing in God with being patriotic? The military isn’t rampant with Christianity and conservatism?
Newsflash, Catholic teaching for just under 2000 years has been against abortion. Now, if the left is closed-tent enough to deny that there might be pro-life leftists then it is a left-wing thing. If not, it isn’t.
You seem to be missing the point on purpose. The question isn’t why some Catholics want to deny communion but why leftist Catholics would show up for communion if, supposedly, left wing bigotry has made it necessary for Catholics to ‘cover’ themselves.
Your bigotry/racism towards Catholics lies in the negative stereotypes … which continue in actions (like above causing covering et al) when a catholic or evangelical would seek a position in a liberal dominated profession.
I wasn’t aware there was any shortgage of Catholics in academia. In fact several commentators from the right have noted Catholics have more representation on the SC than their population. There are more Catholic Colleges than ‘Evangelical’ ones and their work tends to be more respected and prestigous than evangelical colleges….so where’s the ‘bigotry/racism’ exactly?
Look how irrational De Long was, he would refuse tenure if you were a publicly admitted to be a conservative (”You shouldn’t be in academia”).
He made no such statement.
Basic econ, subsidize and/or lower the price of a commodity (addictive to boot) and it’s use will rise.
Did you forget so quickly about our long conversation on prohibition? Did you forget that drinking has yet to recover to its level from pre-prohibition days?
Tiny detail here, it isn’t just the gays and black’s (respectively) who aim their vitriol. Why would a white liberal aim vitriol at a black GOP member on account of his race?
Wait a minute, you recently posted to an example of ‘left wing racism’ that consisted of a group of office workers calling the police on a small group of white demonstrators. So let’s see, leftists go against white conservatives and black conservatives….that seems like non-racist behavior to me.
Look, I happen to know a Christian evangelical blogger who blogged with his real name. He took his material offline and stopped blogging because he’d realized that a public life as a Christian was materially deleterious to his career … in mathematical physics.
So you’ve posted an example of deceptive covering by your blogger friend but no actual example of leftist racism/bigotry. When the topic was covering by gays you seemed to only notice their covering behavior but couldn’t recognize why they might feel the need to cover. Now with like minded friends covering in itself is proof of victimization. Is this really fair? Exactly how are those on the left supposed to respond to charges of racism that consist of unnamed people who claim they can’t be open?
I’ll also note that inspiring covering is not always due to bigotry. For example, simply not wanting to get into arguments about politics at work may be a reason to cover your conservative POV. This may mark some leftists as annoying but not ‘racists’. (And I’ll be fair about it, some gays may cover because they don’t want to deal with attempts by evangelicals to ‘cure’ them or ‘convert’ them. That by itself only means their co-workers have issues respecting boundaries but not that they are necessarily bigoted towards gays).
JA,
Yeah, well there are Blacks in business, academia and politics. Are you suggesting there is no racism those who are Black in this country either? The question is how much harder it is and was for those religious in academic science.
Boonton,
Booze is subsidized? Oh, wait … it’s not. Did you forget that drinking dropped drastically during prohibition?
Try a thought experiment. What would happen if you:
What do you think might occur? Less or more drinking?
The thing is that subsidy by an organization implies to many approval or affirmation by the same.
I never said I didn’t recognize why they might need to cover. I said that I understand that covering is a hardship et al, but that discussions of covering and when thinking of ways to counter it you have to confront the positive side, badging. When you noted that the need to cover was a sign of prejudicial injustice, you’ll find I didn’t counter that point. I tend to agree.
It also might get you shunned or blacklisted.
Yeah, well there are Blacks in business, academia and politics. Are you suggesting there is no racism those who are Black in this country either? The question is how much harder it is and was for those religious in academic science.
So your single anecdote is instructive, but my many (certainly over 10, maybe over 20) anecdotes are irrelevant?
Might get you shunned or blacklisted, so you don’t really have an example or evidence.