Assorted links

by on February 2, 2010 at 10:23 am in Web/Tech | Permalink

1. Another Daniel Lippman profile.

2. Paul Ryan's budget proposal, and critical commentary.

3. McDonald's in Russia now uses the private sector rather than autarchy.

4. A brutal takedown of Stefan Zweig.  Unfair, in my view, but worth a read.

5. Stephon Marbury in China.

6. What does a $32,000 Ring cycle look like?

7. Should Haitian charity funds be pooled?

anon February 2, 2010 at 10:43 am

7. Should Haitian charity funds be pooled?

This problem will diminish in the future as more people start to use the Internet to do their own research on charities.

And centralizing philanthropy is a bad idea, unless you work for the IRS. Diversification is better.

See the March issue of Reason.

Cliff February 2, 2010 at 12:03 pm

Yeah, how can they call the Ryan plan rationing, isn’t it the exact opposite of rationing?

MC February 2, 2010 at 2:00 pm

The “rationing” talking point is already becoming a lefty meme. Clever, but a total lie.

Matthew Yglesias February 2, 2010 at 2:15 pm

Yeah, how can they call the Ryan plan rationing

I’m calling it rationing because when Obama proposed much smaller Medicare cuts that’s what Republicans called it. I would be happy to live in a world in which the term “rationing” was struck form the health care debate, but I don’t live in that world and refuse to unilaterally disarm. By the standards the GOP used to judge Obama’s plan, Paul Ryan is proposing massive, unprecedented rationing of health care for senior citizens. If you don’t like it, go complain to Michael Steele.

ryan yin February 2, 2010 at 3:29 pm

also proposing big Social Security cuts

@MY: Fair enough, except that you especially emphasize the Medicare cuts, which is odd if you think that, holding constant the total (Medicare + SS) cuts, you think there should be more of the former and less of the latter.

I’m calling it rationing because when Obama proposed much smaller Medicare cuts that’s what Republicans called it.

@MY: Setting aside “who did it first” arguments, surely the difference in type of provision (vouchers vs. in-kind-style provision) is relevant when we’re talking about what constitutes rationing and what constitutes “here’s a bunch of money, spend it on what you want, and feel free to add some more of your own”?

Jacqueline February 2, 2010 at 10:48 pm

I want to see the dragon that $32 million can buy. Seattle’s Ring cycle cost $10 million and their dragon is pretty frakking cool.

David Shor February 3, 2010 at 6:52 am

Ryan,

Nothing stops anyone from ponying up their own money and paying for a procedure that medicare rejects. Hell, this is true in pretty much every national healthcare system except for Canada, and even there I believe there was a recent change in policy.

Now, you could argue that the healthcare system is utterly dysfunctional and so seniors not associated with insurance companies have to pay prices that are way way above cost for hospitals. But the fix to this, is to set up exchanges, where different companies bid on standardized plans and makes prices public. This makes the market much more efficient and functional. This is also the center peice of the Obama plan, which I have no doubt you oppose.

But no, by your definition, nothing that any major left wing politician in the US has ever proposed could be called rationing.

ryan yin February 3, 2010 at 11:18 am

David Shor,
There’s a big difference between those two proposals. Case 1: a voucher gives me $X and I want to spend $(X+K). Marginal cost to me is $K. Case 2: I want to get that same service but Medicare is only willing to cover the $X version. I either don’t get the premium service, or I do but the marginal cost to me is $(X+K). This sort of “kinked” demand curve is a standard result of payment in kind.

rahuldev1234 February 11, 2011 at 12:23 pm

Very good points you wrote here..Great stuff…I think you’ve made some truly interesting points.Keep up the good work. Sonakshi Sinha

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: