Here is a list of the worthwhile sites I've Bookmarked recently:
- Childhood memories of a better time are just that, childhood memories.
- Lost vs. Obama. Lost wins.
- Sharing a bed is bad for your health or why you need a king.
- Fun, but possibly inaccurate, summary of personal data consumption [chart].
- Careers in social science take a hit.
- Benefits of inequality.
- Genetic influence in political affiliation.
- Why women on the pill find me more attractive and other interesting facts (numbers 2, 9, 10, 15, 20, 27, 34 and 36 are also interesting).
- Why a trade deficit isn't necessarily a bad thing.
- Leading from the middle.
- Alcohol as social technology.
- Differences between dog and cat people.
- A letter to your past self, particularly about the War in Iraq.
- All in your mind [chart].
- First-Person Tetris (shared by Justin S.) and Tuper Tario Tros. (shared by Bryan).
Hey Harrison, a couple questions for you:
ReplyDelete1. Royal Caribbean Cruise ships are continuing to visit the beaches of Haiti, while on the other side of the island "there are tens of thousands of dead people being piled up on the streets." Most people think this is crazy, but Royal Caribbean argues that continuing their business is ultimately the most charitable thing they can do for Haiti: "In the end, Labadee [beach] is critical to Haiti's recovery; hundreds of people rely on Labadee for their livelihood." Thoughts?
http://www.sphere.com/world/article/royal-caribbean-cruise-ships-dock-in-post-earthquake-haiti/19321187
2. Democrats want to tax the Cadillac health plans, and people are angry over this, but shouldn't the government tax things that we wish to limit? Thoughts on sin tax?
1. I totally agree. Could you imagine if someone complained about buying products from New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina? Dollar for dollar there is no difference in the benefits to both buyers and sellers.
ReplyDelete2. This tax confused me. I thought Democrats wanting to increase the amount of health care. When you tax something you get less of it. Which is why we tax alcohol and cigarettes more (unless you're South Carolina, ha ha). But since when is nice health care bad for you? My general thoughts on taxes are make them simple, straight forward, and have as little distortion on actions as possible (which is why taxes on cigarettes work better than taxes on income).
2. I think that's too simplistic of a view, Harrison. These are high-dollar health plans that only the very rich can afford. It's a way to tax those who have more to help those who have less, which Democrats are typically in favor of. In theory it's not going to decrease healthcare for anyone, because the very rich can afford to pay more.
ReplyDeleteBut why not just increase the sales tax or gasoline tax more? I'm not saying don't raise taxes, I'm just suggesting not taxing something that we want more of. To say it's not going to decrease healthcare for anyone cannot be true, surely there are people on the margin.
ReplyDeleteHere's an article that suggests "about one in 10 family insurance plans would be subject to the new excise tax, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning policy and research group."
Well sales taxes are state level not federal, and increasing the gas tax isn't so easy politically, especially if you're planning on giving the money to healthcare. Again, it's just not that simple.
ReplyDeleteI'm not trying to debate the tax with you. I'm trying to explain that the Democrats don't want to tax Cadillac plans because they don't like healthcare as you suggested, they're doing it to make richer folks pay more for their plans and the poorer pay less.
I never claimed Democrats don't like healthcare and want to tax it. What I'm suggesting is that it doesn't matter what their intentions are, the result is going to be the same: less healthcare.
ReplyDeleteYou suggested it - "I thought Democrats wanting to increase the amount of health care. When you tax something you get less of it."
ReplyDeleteOk now I'm debating the tax with you. The idea of this tax is to get doctors and patients (IE, consumers) more involved in the healthcare market, because right now neither of them are impacted when a doctor orders a test or prescribes a drug. This is the big reason healthcare costs have risen so high - the consumers are detached from the costs of what they're using, specifically because while wages are taxed in this country, healthcare benefits are not. So companies can get a huge basically tax subsidy by lowering wages and providing better healthcare benefits. By taxing expensive plans, employers will be motivated to find cheaper plans and pay more to their employees in wages instead.
All this to say again, I just don't think this is as simple as you're painting it. There are many economists out there (like Dr. Jon Gruber - http://is.gd/72wXs) who like this tax because of the reasons I've mentioned. I think maybe you should look into it a little more before giving the 'ol "don't tax things you like" knee-jerker.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHere's a clickable link: 'Cadillac' tax isn't a tax -- it's a plan to finance real health reform, Dr. Jon Gruber, Washington Post.
ReplyDeleteAlso in response to NYT article: First the limit right now is $8,500/year for individuals -- that's way more than my co. pays for me and I've got a pretty decent job. Second, I think we need this stuff taxed in some way if we want healthcare reform. Yes it means people will have to feel costs - but that's why they call it the dismal science, right?
Hmm, I'm intrigued. So if the goal is just to balance out the subsidies that businesses get with employer provided health care (which I have mentioned before I don't like), why not just get rid of the subsidies all together? Why the populist slant?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete