1. Video interview with John Nash.
2. Portfolio theory: does "green buying" make you more of a jerk?
3. Robin Hanson on Medicare expansion.
4. Don't trust your own repugnance.
5. Are spankers voting Republican?
6. John Storm Roberts passes away; a career I very much admired and his books I loved.
7. Profile of Karl Case, who is retiring.
I’ve always thought that bad psychology made for bad political science, so it’s sad to see the return of the “authoritarian” personality theory.
@Andrew: That happened to me too.
I reminded him a few months before I defended (he needed to show up after all).
He was the only one of my committee who ended up reading my dissertation.
He had a few decent questions as well.
Wow, a lot of bioethics posts on econ log! I need to start reading more often.
As a frequent environmental contrarian, that article on green buying makes me feel … smug.
Nash claims chess was a cognitive therapy that helped him return to rationality. This seems a falsifiable hypothesis. Is there any evidence on the effects of mental games/puzzles on schizophrenics?
You know you spend too much time on the internet when you see the word “spankers” and don’t immediately think it refers to the spanking of children to disciplinary purposes. =|
3. It is not adverse selection when sick people can’t get into risk pools (i.e. insurance). It is in fact the opposite of adverse selction. Adverse selection would be if those people DID get into risk pools without having to offset the costs they bring with them to the other members of the pool who actually are paying to manage their own risks.
That pre-existing sick people would have to go to the government for a handout is not adverse selection either. It’s called welfare.
Just because people don’t like a result doesn’t make words meaningless.
Andrew,
Hmm… adverse selection is when the people who opt into something are the people you least want to opt-in. Hanson describes the sickest people opting into Medicate, driving up costs. Therefore, it is adverse selection, no?
Cliff,
In my opinion, it depends on who you are. To me, it would be the whole point of the public plan to take these people because there is little risk involved in KNOWN healthcare issues, therefore there is no asymmetrical information, and no adverse selection.
So, taking your definition, the people who can’t pay are definitely the ones we want to opt in to a government program. Another name for this is means testing when the left wants it to happen.
The lefties want private insurance companies to perform healthfare and are call it adverse selection when they choose to protect their shareholders, customers, and business model. That ain’t me. My only problem with Robin is that he’s buying into their terminology.
The scam is actually quite bold and subtle. Anyone can walk into a hospital and even if they don’t have money they can usually get emergency treatment. However, by constantly distorting reality to harp on a lack of “access” we are actually being led to the point where noone will have access without being a member of the system.
Comments on this entry are closed.