- ‹ previous
- 1744 of 2746
- next ›
Raw Data
RAW DATA....Andrew Gelman presents us today with the chart on the right. Basically, it's a measure of statewide vote changes between the parties from one election to the next. The big spike upward in 1976, for example, shows that Jimmy Carter won a whole bunch of states that had been won in 1972 by Richard Nixon.
The overall trend is down, which means that states are, in some sense, more set in their ways today than they were in the past. Red states are red states, blue states are blue states, and they just don't swing much from election to election. This is consistent with a bunch of data that shows increasing self-segregation in the United States: communities tend to attract likeminded residents, and as the number of likeminded residents increases, they become far less likely to encounter opposing views that might swing their vote from one party to the other. So they vote the same way year after year.
There's also a view that blames part of this trend on the increasing partisanship of the media. If you can surround yourself exclusively with Fox News and Rush Limbaugh on the one hand, or NPR and Daily Kos on the other, you're going to become much more set in your ways. But although that seems plausible, I have my doubts: European countries have long had a more partisan media than in the U.S., but that doesn't stop them from having big swings from election to election. In any case, my sense is that while partisan media may be on the rise in the U.S., its audience is mostly people who are already true believers. The swing voters still watch CNN and read Time magazine. Contrary data welcome, of course.
Kevin, if you were going to change tuition and medicare/medicaid reimbursement rates to adjust physician expected income, how much would you raise the low end to encourage more G.P.s and gerontologists?
Is there an easier way to do that more effectively than to put all of the uninsured people on the Federal Employees' Health Benefits Plan?
It is no doubt possible to healthcare system more efficient. However, those who think that simply switching to a single payer system will do the job should take a look at Medicare. That single-payer system has been the fastest growing portion of our medical costs. Our per person spending for the elderly is far more than what other countries spend for that group.
And what percentage of the "slower retail prescription drug spending" is due to Americans actively - though reluctantly - cutting back on prescription drugs out of financial concerns? You can significantly slow the rate of health care spending by cutting back on treatment and medication, through active denial or through prohibitive pricing and co-pays.
Private insurance spends 35% of the total, but insurance premiums must be more than this since health insurance is a profitable business. What do we pay in premiums over and above this amount? And how much higher than $7421 is the per person cost as a result?
If the government hadn't given everyone coupons for digital converter boxes, then the couch potatoes would be caught by surprise when their TV's went dead and would take up exercise, reducing healthcare costs by half.
Given the weight of the obesity epidemic, I'm amazed there isn't some leadership and cajoling from the bully pulpit, especially since the last three presidents have been exercisers.
Let's see: if most countries spend only half what we do on health care, and tax dollars already constitute 46% of health spending, then in theory, we could buy universal health care already, just with what our Federal and lesser governments are spending now.
Seems like an awfully good argument right there.
Here's a thought-Get the U.S. off the pill. Pass a law that forbids any medication that has worse side-effects than the problem that they are having and encourage a better lifestyle as the real cure. You would be amazed at how little care a human needs with the proper lifestyle and eating habits! The idea that 14 percent of the world's population is taking 43 percent of the world's drugs is ridiculous!
"wring ... efficiency ... Rube Goldberg"
What's wrong with that picture?
You can wring a washcloth dry because it is a sound structure filled with extraneous material.
You can't wring mud dry because there is no structure. You are left with dust (or a brick that turns to dust when you stress it).
The medical system may not even rise to the level of Rube-Goldberg. Independent practitioners providing highly specialized services, swimming in a sea of money drive the system.
Criteria for a wringable structure are tough: it must materialize the value of health rather than sickness (a systemic rather than local measure) and solve the problem that the direct labor role (the doctor) is also the most expensive and privileged.
A good squeeze isn't going to do the job.
On the health spending chart, what is the "other" 25% contain.
Footnote omitted.
The numbers are deceptive. It's well known that U.S. spends something like 30% on administrative costs, not the 7% cited. Other countries spend half or less on this--because of more efficient health insurers.
We need more efficiency but also need a system that looks at the cost/efficacy of procedures and interventions.
...especially since the last three presidents have been exercisers.
Well, one not so much, depending on what you consider exercise.
There's a whole lot of "other" going on in the Where It Goes half of the chart.
Like Cycledoc above, I remain very, very skeptical of the 7% administrative cost figure in the chart.
It isn't anywhere near 7% within the private health insurance business.
A question I can never find the answer to.
How much of the private insurance category do the insurance plans of federal, state and local governments and agencies represent?
At least part of that is public funding, isn't it?
"half again as much"? Could you use a more confusing phrase? I had to read it three times before I had a clue as to what you might have meant.
I know you don't want to use the same phrase all the time, but I'd stick with "50% more" here.
Edwin Starr, by a mile.
I would dearly love a war on morons.
I want a war on wars on!
GYWO
Oh, my favorite war is the ElectroWar.
Get ready for it in 2k9.
I'm with Justice.
A War on War
Yeah, you can keep your Justice. Deadmau5 is making it two years in a row (if you honestly think anybody came even close to him in 2k8, we're done talking). Dirty South had some killers last year and really might do something great this year, but I'm calling it right now: all of Ed Banger is on the way out (sorry eddie), not the least of which will be Justice.
Get Your War On
http://www.mnftiu.cc/category/gywo/war80/
The common theme seems to be that a War on ____ is a war that will be lost.
So I guess I like the War on Drugs the best, I prefer drugs to terror or poverty.
The expression should be changed to Lost the War On ...
Wasn't the War on Cancer first?
I'll second Get Your War On.
Four year olds. I think its pretty winnable.
I propose a War on Czars
Adolphus at 4:55 wins!
War on Sarah Palin. The ugliest, most vicious war in our lifetimes.
As they say, poverty won. I can't comment on the outcomes of the other "wars."
The post has been up for three and a half hours and no one has mentioned Bob Somerby's "War on Gore." I'm shocked.
It would appear that the US Senate's favorite war is the one now occuring in Gaza. Today they passed a unanimous resolution that supported Israel on every point. F*uck them all. See this link for text:
Text of Senate Resolution on Gaza
I just saw this bumpersticker:
"At least we are winning the war on the environment"
:(
Michael Franti:
They gotta war for oil, a war for gold
A war for money and a war for souls
A war on terror, a war on drugs
A war on kindness and a war on hugs
A war on birds and a war on bees
They gotta a war on hippies tryin' save the trees
A war with jets and a war with missiles
A war with high seated, government official
Wall street war, on high finance
A war on people who just love to dance
A war on music, a war on speech
A war on teachers and the things they teach
A war for the last 500 years
War's just messin' up the atmosphere
A war on Muslims, a war on Jews
A war on Christians and Hindus
A whole lotta people just sayin' kill them all
They gotta a war on Mumia Abu Jamal
The war on pot, is a war that's failed
A war that's fillin' up the nations jails
World war one, two, three and four
Chemical weapons, biological war
Bush war 1, Bush war 2
They gotta a war for me, they gotta a war for you!
Even though there are currently only 177,000 results for "get your war on," it was pretty competitive with the actual war on terror for a while. (Google trends link -- and look how WoT spikes in '04 and '06 but not at all in '08.)
Dudley Perkins is actually pretty amazing, as is everyone else on Stones Throw Records. Check them out.
How about if we stop the "War on _" and step back to simple policing?
Firfox Google search has auto-complete. Type "war on " and I get the following list:
war on terror
war on drugs
war on Iraq
war on poverty
war on Christmas
war on terror game
war on terrorism game
war on Mumbai
war on democracy
war on want
That's it. You're welcome.
War on 'war as metaphor'
War on the war pigs.
Shortly after we invaded Afghanistan, I was talking with a friend of mine who was complaining about the phrase "War on Terror", and about "War on ______" in general.
"I really want to get everyone to stop saying stuff like that," he said.
"So, you're saying you want a War on Hyperbole?"
"Yes! Exactly!"
I guess you had to be there.
War on, America! [please note comma]
So the appeal of 'war on' wore off?
We appear to be winning the "War on Terra".
However, the GLBT "War on Family" gets more hits.
You've got to like a comments thread where Michael Franti gets quoted at length.
Personally, I'm all for a war on something that is actually capable of surrender.
I liked Carter's Moral Equivalent of War - renamed MEOW.
War on 45 by DOA.
You know that war is a big fund raiser. It's a biggy word, kind of like abortion, gay rights, amnesty for illegals, etc. People of various persuasions take interest in these words and poor their hard earned savings and lives into these causes with little thought of the possible consequences-especially bad consequences! The one thing that I will say for ambulance chasers like the lawyers in Congress, they really know how to manipulate the masses to contribute to their personal fortunes and totally screw up the entire world for the monetary gain of the few-namely themselves!