Happy Birthday, Marines

Just in time, a story about the Corps that is after my own heart.

The MWTC near Bridgeport, Calif., has begun teaching an advanced horsemanship training course in order to teach Special Operations Forces (SOF) personnel the necessary skills to enable them to ride horses, load pack animals, and maintain animals for military applications in remote and dangerous environments.

The need for men like this never really goes away, though our pride in technology sometimes makes us think we need it -- we will need them -- no more.

Hollywood: Fantasyland

Tom Cruise: 'My job is as hard as fighting in Afghanistan.' Picked a great week to stick your foot in that one, son.

Certain Marines crafted this appropriately off-color response. [May have to be logged in to FB to see it.]

"Cause of death undetermined"

A remarkably restrained account of the demise of a Louisiana man who had been holding his kidnapped ex-wife hostage since last Wednesday in a shack in a canefield.  The police couldn't find her but, unluckily for the guy, her family could.  They applied a very direct approach to the situation.  The authors of the story leave a lot to the imagination.

Veterans Day & Birthday Weekend

Normally I'd wait until the actual days to post, but all the active duty folks I know are so involved in the 4-day weekend I figure I'd better post in case they only get by once. Happy birthday, tomorrow. Those of you who are veterans or hope someday to become veterans, enjoy the eleventh. All the best, warriors.

He could fix this if he liked

A comment I admired:

The GOP needs to heavily advertise the fact that the only, yes only, reason that people are losing their current policies is because President Obama's administration (which he presumably leads) wrote regulations that overrode the grandfathering clause in all those policies. 

This is important.  They didn't have to do that!  It's still reversible! 

The GOP leadership needs to call him out on this daily, until even his sycophantic mainstream press contingent is forced to ask him why he doesn't simply tell his HHS director to reverse the harmful regulations that overrode the grandfather clause. 

Then, he either reverses it and restores normality, while destroying the source of the subsidies required to make Obamacare work, or he continues to lie, and the Democrat brand continues to plummet.

I'm making this point--that HHS could reverse the harmful regulations tomorrow without violating the ACA--in every forum I can reach.  It won't prop the ACA up; the income from we few "Wild Westers" isn't enough even if every one of us knuckles under to paying double the premiums from now on.  But it will get some of us out of an acute, immediate bind, and it will show either that the President screwed the pooch big time, or that he could help this "unimportant 5%" but simply can't be bothered to do it.

Junk teachers

Maybe there is some way to tell a good teacher from an ineffective one:

Education Secretary Arne Duncan hailed this year's National Assessment of Educational Progress (i.e., the nation's report card) results on Thursday as "encouraging." . . . 

Between 2010 and 2012, about 4% of D.C. teachers—and nearly all of those rated "ineffective"—were dismissed. About 30% of teachers rated "minimally effective" left on their own, likely because they didn't receive a pay bump and were warned that they could be removed within a year if they failed to shape up. 

Clearing out the deadwood appears to have lifted scores. D.C. led the nation in student progress. Average reading scores jumped five points in the fourth grade and six in the eighth. The percentage of students scoring at or above "basic" in math rose by six points in both grade levels.

Just admitting that there could be such a thing as "deadwood" has got to help.

Lies and "Apologies"

Shamelessly cross-posted from tomorrow's edition of my blog.

First he lied with his bald, clearly spoken, oft-repeated "Period."

Then he lied with his denial that he said "Period," insisting that he really said "If."

Now he "apologizes." 

I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me.

Let's leave aside whether we can believe him this third time around.  Let's look at what he's masquerading as an apology.

For what is he apologizing, really?  That folks find themselves in "this situation" as a result of his behavior.  There's not the least syllable of an apology for his behavior.

A third lie.

Update: As I think about this a bit more, here's another thought: Obama is sorry that folks took him at his word--that whole "based on assurances they got from me" thing.

Hmm....

Eric Hines

Chris Christie, hard-edged conservative

OK, now that you've stopped laughing, you can treat yourself to more entertaining tidbits from the alarmed president of the Democratic Governors Association:

“What’s worked for [Christie] has been to make sure that nobody talks about the issues, that people just get consumed with his personality-driven late-show entertainment,” O’Comartun said.  “People will see past the bluster and the vaudeville routine that is the Chris Christie show.  They’ll focus in on the issues.”

Of course they will.  That's just how you've been training them, Mr. O'Carmatun!

On the issues, the best thing that probably can be said about Christie is that he'd be a sight better than Hillary Clinton.  The man has fallen for global warming, for pete's sake.   But on style, bluster, and vaudeville--oh, my!   Clinton will wish she had a sliver of what he's got.

I'm waiting for the bumper stickers:  "Putting government on a diet."

Glimmers and cold comforts

From Michael Barrone:

Northern Virginia was perhaps more impacted by the shutdown than any other part of the country.  Yet when the exit poll asked who was more to blame, 47 percent of voters said Republicans in Congress and 46 percent said Obama. Considering that individuals almost always poll better than groups of people—particularly Republicans (or, for that matter, Democrats) in Congress, this is a devastating result for Obama. 

It reminds me of the story of the Teamsters Union business agent who was in the hospital and received a bouquet of flowers.  The card read, “The executive board wishes you a speedy recovery by a vote of 9 to 6.”  However, in this case, the margin was narrower.

Unloading the gun

I'm liking Sarah Hoyt again this morning.   She argues that sooner or later every government becomes like a monkey with a pistol.

In monarchies this is fairly easy to see.  The brilliant father (or in Portugal’s case) the brilliant uncle, will raise a successor who -- either because of natural issues (those people really needed to get a clue about marrying their cousins) or because he was raised in luxury, catered to from birth, and never had to do anything to justify his existence, while, at the same time, everyone told him how brilliant he was – will be a moron in power. 

But in democracies this happens too.   Democracies are often victims of their own success.   The generation that strives and fights raises the generation that is much like the king’s heir.   The generation that builds an industrial empire raises the generation that says “Wouldn’t it be great if we had a war on poverty?  And isn’t the government just the instrument to use?” 

. . . Keep government small and starved. Then when it starts pointing the gun inappropriately, and shooting at shadows, or at people just for fun and with total amoral enjoyment, you can immobilize it and take the gun away. . . .  The only way to make this even remotely safe is to unload that gun, to take as many things as possible that people rely on the government for, and find other ways to do it.  Let government play with its shiny toys, but learn to ignore, circumvent, go under, go around.  Try to live your life as much as you can without either asking anything from government or letting it reach into your life to destroy anything you care about.

Before government can be trusted to do the tasks that we really must entrust to it, it should be restrained from wrecking anything even more important than those tasks.  You don't start a fire until you've thought through how to contain it.

This rings a bell

From this morning's Wall Street Journal:

Angered consumers are taking legal action over being dropped. On Monday, two California residents filed a lawsuit in a Los Angeles state court against Anthem Blue Cross, operated by WellPoint Inc., WLP +0.69% alleging that the insurer misled them into altering individual policies that led to them being canceled this year. In one case, a woman in her 60s upped her deductible, by $1,000, to $6,000 in return for lower monthly payments. In another, a health plan was upgraded to include more robust coverage. 

"This was an orchestrated effort by Anthem Blue Cross to get as many people off of these grandfathered plans as possible," said William Shernoff, a Claremont, Calif., lawyer representing both plaintiffs. A WellPoint spokeswoman declined to comment, citing the pending litigation.

We made trivial changes in coverage last year, too, and were vehemently reassured by Blue Cross that it would have no impact on our grandfathered status.

Game changers

I like to think about technological advantages, despite their frequent downsides, because they're often the wild card that allows people to sidestep the tyranny they're otherwise so likely to be subjected to by the control freaks who gravitate to power.  (Why, yes, I am preoccupied with issues of tyranny late.  Why do you ask?)  The Atlantic ran a survey of their favorite experts to see what consensus they could develop on the 50 most important advances in technology since the wheel.  The list is very light on ancient discoveries, with only seven discoveries dating from the B.C. period:  alphabetization, Archimedes's screw, cement, the sailboat, the abacus, the nail, and the lever, in descending order of popularity.  Wikipedia has a broader list here, arranged chronologically rather than by importance.

I notice that the stirrup, the rotary quern, the horse collar, and the crossbow didn't make the list.  Nor did crop rotation, though nitrogen-fixing did.  Wasn't there a well-known book about the critical importance of these five inventions?  I can't find it now in a net search.

Update:  I believe the book I remembered on the subject of the quern, the stirrup, crop rotation, and the horse collar was Lynn White's 1962 "Medieval Technology and Social Change," which I was conflating with William MacNeill's 1984 "The Pursuit of Power," highlighting the crossbow.

Don't like your party?

Change it.

Inertia

My most surprising discovery:  the overwhelming importance in business of an unseen force that we might call "the institutional imperative.  In business school, I was given no hint of the imperative's existence and I did not intuitively understand it when I entered the business world.  I thought then that decent, intelligent, and experienced managers would automatically make rational business decisions.  But I learned over time that isn't so.  Instead, rationality frequently wilts when the institutional imperative comes into play. 

For example:  (1) As if governed by Newton's First Law of Motion, an institution will resist any change in its current direction; (2) Just as work expands to fill available time, corporate projects or acquisitions will materialize to soak up available funds; (3) Any business craving of the leader, however foolish, will be quickly supported by detailed rate-of-return and strategic studies prepared by his troops; and (4) The behavior of peer companies, whether they are expanding, acquiring, setting executive compensation or whatever, will be mindlessly imitated."

-- Warren Buffett, in the 1989 Berkshire Hathaway Chairman's Letter

Does this mean that corporations are hopeless?  I would say, instead, that it means we can't expect corporations, or any other group of people, to amend themselves from within purely as a result of rational thinking or pure motives.  It takes disruptive outside forces--the pain of failure--to make them change.  Private institutions can be stupid and harmful, but they don't hold a candle to stupid and harmful government institutions, because it's so much harder to apply the pain of failure to the latter.  Voter outrage is weak and delayed.  Private companies can lose their customers; monopolies can't.  Any government product that can outlaw its competition is almost guaranteed to become a monster.

Pesky talking points

Politico is not what you'd call a right-wing site.  At most, it's "centrist," whatever that means, and it's generally positive about Obamacare.  It's running a series of thumbnail PDFs to educate the pubic about this new law.  So what does the article "Beware of the Obamacare talking points" tell us?

• Obamacare is an entitlement, and you can never shut one of those down.  The Politico response is:  well, yeah, they're basically entitlements, though you can quibble about the details.  Obamacare is going to cost almost $2 trillion over ten years.  But Congress could still conceivably scale these entitlements back, unlike every other entitlement.


• Obamacare is already "helping to slow" the growth of healthcare spending.  Eh, not so much.


• Subsidies will fix the rate shock.  Eh, not so much, and to the rate shock you'll have to add the sharp increase in out-of-pocket costs.


• It'll be like shopping for a TV.  "It may get there, but it will take a while."  For people who've never tried to buy insurance before, it could conceivably be less confusing than it was before, but for everyone else it's a nightmare.


• You won't have as many doctors to choose from.  Yeah, but people who were uninsured didn't have any to choose from, so it's all good.


• Obamacare will reduce the deficit.  You're dreaming; see above.


• Obamacare will usher in death panels.  Oh, stop it, they won't be here for a little while yet.

Is Medicare "junk" coverage?

A commenter at Megan McArdle's place points out that, by White House standards, Medicare is junk coverage that should be outlawed like meat infested with e. coli.  Medicare is essentially catastrophic coverage strictly for expensive hospital stays.  Of course many seniors also want coverage for expensive, frequent office visits and prescriptions, and there is coverage for that.  Voluntary coverage.  Voluntary, private coverage for which they pay their own money to insurance carriers in the private market.

We can't just let people make up their own minds about whether to carry only catastrophic coverage, right?  That would be like letting them drive a Ford pinto.  And we can't expect them to pay for their own coverage beyond the catastrophic level, right?  And yet, as the commenter points out,  what Medicare makes optional for vulnerable seniors, Obamacare mandates for young invincibles.

In other news in bizarro-policy world, maternity care is now mandatory for the middle-aged but optional for women under 30 years of age, who are the only ones now legally permitted to buy bare-bones catastrophic coverage.

Weighing options again

It turns out the health insurance agent I talked to earlier this week probably was mistaken.  It seems that, as of January 1, 2015, no one will legally be able to sell me high-deductible affordable coverage, with or without medical underwriting, "on" or "off" the exchange.  It's all gone after this next year.

So to recap:   For over a decade we've had a high-deductible policy ($10K per person/$15K for the two) with Blue Cross.  It's very good PPO coverage, decent network, covers all the usual stuff, but a high deductible.  By law, it must be replaced with a deductible that's $3,750 lower per person ($2,500 for the two) but costs $4,800 more a year, and offers no new benefits of any conceivable use to us now or ever.  We have to decide whether to pay the extra $4,800 a year, or go without insurance for the first time in our lives.

We don't "insure" for medical costs that are reasonably likely in an ordinary year; we "budget" for those.  Insurance is for very unlikely harmful developments.  We rely on insurance in case (1) we have a medical problem that would make our lives unendurable or kill us, (2) that can be cured, and (3) that would cost enough to blow our live savings.  All three of conditions (1)-(3) have to happen before the insurance will make a difference to our life savings.  If the medical problem isn't that serious and we can't pay for it, we'll do without. If the medical problem is serious but can't be treated effectively, we'll do without.  If the medical problem is serious and can be treated and wouldn't obliterate our live savings, we'll pay for it ourselves.

The policies offered on the exchange on a subsidized basis (the only way to avoid the huge price hike) are all HMOs.  If my information is correct, they're the worst possible sort of "closed network" HMO; you're covered in the network, but outside the network, you don't just get a lower co-insurance rate, you get zero.  This is a sign of the deteriorating insurance climate, where squeezing down the network is the last option available for cost control.   In contrast, in our PPO, if we go out of network, we suffer only a partial loss of benefits, and there's still a cap on total out-of-pocket expense, though higher than the in-network cap.   If we stay in network, the doctors who have accepted Blue Cross are prohibited from charging us more than the Blue Cross rate, so the entire bill either counts against our deductible or is paid at the usual co-insurance rate.  If we go out of network, the doctor charges what he charges, not Blue Cross's fantasy of what he should charge; we're responsible for 100% of the "excess" price, and only the fictitious price counts against our deductible or is paid at our co-insurance rate.  But even then, we get a certain amount of help with catastrophic bills, and it is possible to put an upper limit on how much destruction can be visited on our life savings by a medical catastrophe.

A closed-network policy HMO would do us almost no good at all.  We want coverage only if there is a very serious problem, and that is the last time we'll be willing to settle for a Tier-4 doctor in the next county.  Our life savings would be nearly at as much risk with such a policy as if we were going bare.   So our decision, which we'll face in late 2014 when our current policy is destroyed by the ACA once and for all, is (1) go bare or (2) pay $4,800 a year more (minimum) for a PPO plan with a decent network of doctors and hospitals.  What makes the choice even more difficult is that Blue Cross reportedly is going to lose doctors and hospitals even from its PPO networks, though probably not as many as they'll lose from their HMO networks.

Going bare would mean saving about $11K every year.  That's enough to build up a pretty impressive warchest against the possibility of an expensive disease.  And we have to consider, now, that we're taking a gamble only on horrible medical bills for a maximum of one year, depending on what month the disaster lands in.   After that, we can just sign back up for insurance for the following year.  (And who knows?  Medicare may actually survive long enough to kick in in 7-9 years.)  The IRS penalty for going bare would be negligible and uncollectible anyway.  Crazy, but going bare seems like the rational choice.

This week on appeal

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the federal district court ruling requiring Catholic business-owners to offer health coverage that includes birth control.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the federal district court ruling that recently had overturned certain aspects of the recent Texas state law banning late-term abortions and requiring abortionists to maintain privileges at nearby hospitals in case of emergency.  The Texas law is now back in effect.  (Link fixed!)

Provider shock

Awesome.  Who would have guessed that the insurance jammed down our throats by the compassionate new law would keep its costs down by eliminating doctors and hospitals from our networks?  There are all kinds of tasty treats hidden in this shiny new law.

And if you thought that the big problem this week was limited to about 5% of the market -- and who cares about such a tiny voting bloc, right? -- it seems that closer to 90 million people are at risk of losing the coverage they wanted to keep.  But no problem:  they can all just shop around in the new market, right?

I thought my expectations about this program were about as bad as possible, but these people are surprising even me.

This is a good one, too:  We had to take your insurance off the market, because we made a central planning decision that people probably weren't going to be willing to buy it any more once they saw our fabulous new product.  That's capitalism.

(Pictures of) Guns are Scary

But sometimes the Bill of Rights wins anyway.  If you're a public school that wants to ban a t-shirt message, don't pick one that celebrates the NRA, because they've got lawyers who will come and help the students.  Pretty good lawyers, too:

In the face of public ridicule and legal action the school district came to its senses and issued an apology.  In a statement published by Michael L. Christensen, Superintendent of Schools, Orange Unified School District, the school district said the shirt was okay to wear to school, and promised to provide training to staff aimed at preventing future incidents.  The matter now seems to be resolved, and the NRA has given Haley a carton of the banned t-shirts to give to her friends, to wear to school if they want to.