Feb. 26th, 2009
what's middle class to you?
Feb. 26th, 2009 05:15 pmhttp://www.usnews.com/blogs/the-home-front/2009/02/26/mortgage-interest-deduction-on-the-chopping-block.html
The budget proposal phases out (may not be the right terminology) the mortgage interest deduction. As far as I'm concerned, there should not _be_ a mortgage interest deduction. There should be a _rent_ deduction. The current set up is heinously regressive. The commentary in the above URL is truly appalling, in that it quotes a guy from NAR saying:
"this proposal will increase the cost of housing for many middle-class families" in places with expensive housing.
There is also a quote from this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123559630127675581.html
The WSJ is careful to note that this proposal affects "Upper-Income Americans" -- after all, the brackets affected in TY2009 _start_ with an AGI of $208K+.
What do you think -- does the "middle" class include couples making $208,000 AGI?
The budget proposal phases out (may not be the right terminology) the mortgage interest deduction. As far as I'm concerned, there should not _be_ a mortgage interest deduction. There should be a _rent_ deduction. The current set up is heinously regressive. The commentary in the above URL is truly appalling, in that it quotes a guy from NAR saying:
"this proposal will increase the cost of housing for many middle-class families" in places with expensive housing.
There is also a quote from this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123559630127675581.html
The WSJ is careful to note that this proposal affects "Upper-Income Americans" -- after all, the brackets affected in TY2009 _start_ with an AGI of $208K+.
What do you think -- does the "middle" class include couples making $208,000 AGI?
innumeracy rears its foolish head on CNBC
Feb. 26th, 2009 05:29 pmApparently there is a banking index on S&P for about 16 listings. And apparently it is up a lot -- 122%, IIRC -- this week. The guy on the screen commenting on this said, here it is at 75ish, it was just at 35ish. But a year or so ago, it peaked at over 400. So while it is up a lot this week, we'd have to have 10 of these rallies to get back to where we were.
Wow.
Okay, sort of? But one of two things is true. Either each of those successive rallies is less and less impressive proportionally (eventually disappearing in the noise of the spread, presumably) or we don't need 10 of them. If you go by percentage, you'd only need slightly more than 2. The joys of exponential growth, dude.
Got no links for this one; I saw it on the TV machine.
Wow.
Okay, sort of? But one of two things is true. Either each of those successive rallies is less and less impressive proportionally (eventually disappearing in the noise of the spread, presumably) or we don't need 10 of them. If you go by percentage, you'd only need slightly more than 2. The joys of exponential growth, dude.
Got no links for this one; I saw it on the TV machine.
health care reform
Feb. 26th, 2009 09:25 pmIt looks like the Obama administration is basically going to take the Medicare part D funding problem, brandish it at the public at large, and use that to accomplish general reform. You want entitlements? All righty. We're going to regulate them.
About fucking time.
The starting point, obviously, is making it so that Medicare can negotiate drug etc. prices as a whole, the way the VA does. Duh. But the administration is not going to stop there; the stimulus bill included a little over a billion dollars to research what works best for conditions which there are competing treatments for. Now, this seems breathtakingly obvious. We have a lot of "variations" research, showing that you get different medical care depending on which doctor/hospital/whatever you happen to interact with. The variations research is pretty compelling -- paying more doesn't get you better care, and more care typically has worse outcomes. Spending a billion dollars figuring out how to get everyone the best care seems -- to me, anyway -- a relatively non-controversial idea.
Not so to actual doctors!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/health/26chen.html
I have little respect for Dr. Chen, altho I do not typically mention her articles here. I figure I'm a little repetitive anyway. She ultimately comes out in favor of regulation, but not for anything like a reasonable reason. She goes, hey, the transplant process is heavily regulated and that works well. Umm. No actual comparative outcomes or anything but whatever. Her little story about the woman with the tumor and the Rose Parade also, very not compelling. Whatever. Failure to invoke variations literature is disturbing, but okay. She notes that there are third parties involved all the time, but fails to mention all the groups working separately on guidelines/practice standards/etc.
But at the end of the day, there is Kaiser. And Kaiser is All About We Run Our Doctors -- They Don't Run Us. Doctors are just more staff at Kaiser. And their outcomes are the best out there, and their costs are the best controlled. Kaiser is proof positive, start to finish, that studying what works works really well.
But apparently, doctors care _so much_ about their relationship with their patient, that outcomes don't really matter to them. Kinda like abusive parents.
Kinda creepy.
About fucking time.
The starting point, obviously, is making it so that Medicare can negotiate drug etc. prices as a whole, the way the VA does. Duh. But the administration is not going to stop there; the stimulus bill included a little over a billion dollars to research what works best for conditions which there are competing treatments for. Now, this seems breathtakingly obvious. We have a lot of "variations" research, showing that you get different medical care depending on which doctor/hospital/whatever you happen to interact with. The variations research is pretty compelling -- paying more doesn't get you better care, and more care typically has worse outcomes. Spending a billion dollars figuring out how to get everyone the best care seems -- to me, anyway -- a relatively non-controversial idea.
Not so to actual doctors!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/health/26chen.html
I have little respect for Dr. Chen, altho I do not typically mention her articles here. I figure I'm a little repetitive anyway. She ultimately comes out in favor of regulation, but not for anything like a reasonable reason. She goes, hey, the transplant process is heavily regulated and that works well. Umm. No actual comparative outcomes or anything but whatever. Her little story about the woman with the tumor and the Rose Parade also, very not compelling. Whatever. Failure to invoke variations literature is disturbing, but okay. She notes that there are third parties involved all the time, but fails to mention all the groups working separately on guidelines/practice standards/etc.
But at the end of the day, there is Kaiser. And Kaiser is All About We Run Our Doctors -- They Don't Run Us. Doctors are just more staff at Kaiser. And their outcomes are the best out there, and their costs are the best controlled. Kaiser is proof positive, start to finish, that studying what works works really well.
But apparently, doctors care _so much_ about their relationship with their patient, that outcomes don't really matter to them. Kinda like abusive parents.
Kinda creepy.