Assorted links


>4. The Party of Medicare, Rand Paul too.

Of course...Is it s surprise. Tea partiers are nothing but RINO frauds. A complete shame on Reagan conservatism.

E tu Rand Paul, e tu. We are back to having not one candidate for office worth voting for.

He's voting against cuts in Medicare reimbursement rates, correct?

That makes sense. Doctors shouldn't work for peanuts. The correct way to address cost issues is raise the age and deductibles, not try to force doctors to accept rates that are way too low.

Party of Medicare? Paul says he wants to make changes to Medicare, including raising deductibles, so his opponent--who is a Democrat, I guess I should note--accuses him of wanting to raise deductibles. A fair point, it seems to me, but a point that should be associated with the Party of Medicare, or maybe I don't get the point of the name.

I'll talk epigenetics. But I'm already close to saying more than I know.

But considering 'hot topics' in science in general, we didn't know they existed when the last hot topic was the next big thing that would save us.


I get the sense from the comments from Dave and Thomas that most people didn't watch Rand Paul's ad. It says, both verbally and in text on screen, "Rand Paul doesn't support higher deductible for seniors." It says he wants to reform it and make it sustainable. Of course, if higher deductibles isn't the answer, you're pretty much left with taxes and lower reimbursement rates to do it.

libert--yeah, I watched the ad, and read through to the NYTimes' coverage of Paul's earlier position. What I don't get is the appelation "Party of Medicare." Do you not understand that Paul was criticized by his Democratic opponent for his earlier position (the one he's denying)? I'm not certain on how to score "proposing to raise deductibles and then running away from the idea when criticized" versus "criticizing opponent for proposing to raise deductibles", but surely it's defensible to think that the second position is the position of the Party of Medicare. At least, if that term is to have some meaning other than "some bloggers want young people to think that their political coalition is young".


The large company trend is because top business/finance grads got into investment banking or hedge funds and rather than into the CEO track.

Of course, if higher deductibles isn't the answer, you're pretty much left with taxes and lower reimbursement rates to do it.

You forgot the solution that Paul claims to favor (not that I believe him): increased age at which benefits begin. that was in the link, btw.

Anyone know how I can get an addon to firefox that will warn me when I've clicked on a Sullivan link and stop me from going there without a confirmation click? I really don't want to help keep him employed/blogging/cluttering assorted links

To comments like

The people who turn any republican statement on medicare into campaign ads against republicans are now complaining that republicans won't say anything about medicare.

and others...

When conservatives, libertarians, Republicans put in place a health care system that serves everyone for about 10% of GDP as well as the health care systems of Canada, France, Germany, Israel, etc, then cutting Medicare to that level of universal care will be simply a matter of equity and shared sacrifice.

Instead, all they only thing about half the people on Medicare hear when people talk of cutting Medicare is they will be thrown into the individual health care system hell they were in sometime between age 60 and 65. A high percentage of those on Medicare were laid off, or retired, or worked in or were forced into a job that didn't include any benefits. If you were a construction worker you might make good money in a trade but you paid your own health insurance, and in your late 50s and 60s those sky rocket.

A very good universal health care system that costs less is possible because dozens exist, so deliver that and then cut Medicare costs by moving everyone to that system. It is easy to cut Medicare costs.

Guys guys guys. The only way out of a collapsing Ponzi scheme is for someone to take it up the wallet pocket.

The least bad way for this is that the old folks who didn't realize they were doing something wrong get as much as was promised to them while the young folks like me who can afford to make a change now and have time to re-calculate (and in my case are vehemently opposed to taking other peoples' money get to opt out by a small enough amount that the old dudes can still eat). Current beneficiaries benefit even though they really shouldn't because they don't have the wherewithal to accommodate past policy errors. The young people get screwed. That's the way it has to be.

That is what Rand Paul's position is exactly. He hasn't changed his position (perhaps he's gotten more specific about the generational screwing aspects). The Democrat I'm sure was trying to frighten Seniors by saying Paul was going to take away their checks. People like Sullivan and us don't have to believe what people like Dave Weigel interprete 30 second political ads to mean. In fact, he says "for seniors" in the ad. Perfectly consistent. What do you expect, an accounting seminar?

"Yet more Nobelists at non-top tier universities": surely the interesting distinction is where the work was done rather than where the doer is now employed. Do non-top-tier universities do even better on the first criteion rather than the second?

If judges call the shots as they see them

instead of looking through prepared lenses,

there will be welcome surprises, as with the

recent Nobel Prize winners who are not

associated with top-tier universities.

Recognizing unusual work, regardless

of where it is done, is itself a mark of


I'd like to point out that the University of Delaware has an excellent chemical engineering department. One of the best in the world. So, it may not be elite overall, but in the relevant category it is fairly top-notch.

Comments for this post are closed