Tag: Premium

Paul Roderick Gregory catches Russia’s Human Rights Council disputing the official results of the Crimean referendum, which claimed a 97 percent vote in favor of annexation and 83 percent turnout:

[A]ccording to a major Ukrainian news site, TSN.ua, the website of the President of Russia’s Council on Civil Society and Human Rights (shortened to President’s Human Rights Council) posted a report that was quickly taken down as if it were toxic radioactive waste. According to this purported report about the March referendum to annex Crimea, the turnout of Crimean voters was only 30 percent. And of these, only half voted for the referendum–meaning only 15 percent of Crimean citizens voted for annexation.

The TSN report does not link to a copy of the cited report. However, there is a report of the Human Rights Council, entitled “Problems of Crimean Residents,” still up on the president-sovet.ru website, which discusses the Council’s estimates of the results of the March 16 referendum. Quoting from that report: “In Crimea, according to various indicators, 50-60% voted for unification with Russia with a voter turnout (yavka) of 30-50%.” This leads to a range of between 15 percent (50% x 30%) and 30 percent (60% x 50%) voting for annexation. The turnout in the Crimean district of Sevastopol, according to the Council, was higher: 50-80%.

Ilya Somin corroborates Gregory and adds:

The Council report also discusses a number of troubling developments in Crimea since the Russian occupation began. For example, it states that the new authorities in Crimea have decided to “liquidate” the pro-Ukrainian Kiev Patriarchate Orthodox church in the region, details the persecution of Crimean Tatar groups opposed to Russia rule, and notes that Crimean journalists fear the “numerous restrictions” on freedom of speech and press imposed by Russian law.

It should be noted that the Council has long been one of the few Russian government agencies willing to criticize the government on human rights issues, but more recently many of the more liberal members of Council have resigned or been forced out.

Sarah Kliff analyzes the Romneycare study the came out a couple days ago:

The new Harvard study estimates that for every 830 people the Massachusetts insurance expansion covered, one additional life was saved. This was a 2.9 percent decrease in the mortality rate compared to similar counties that did not have insurance expansions. … It’s hard to know whether the health care law will lead to similar gains elsewhere. Massachusetts has more doctors per capita than any other state, which could mean it was easier for people to see a doctor once they gained insurance coverage. But there’s also the possibility of even bigger gains outside of Massachusetts, where states are starting from a lower insured rate than the Bay State did in 2006. If the coverage expansion effects more people outside of Massachusetts, that could mean even more deaths prevented elsewhere.

Michael F. Cannon feels that the cost is too high:

Even if [Romney care has saved lives,] this Annals study also suggests that success has come at a very high cost. The authors estimate that “for approximately every 830 adults who gained insurance [under RomneyCare], there was 1 fewer death per year.” If we assume the per-person cost of covering those 830 adults is roughly the per-person premium for employer-sponsored coverage in Massachusetts in 2010 (about $5,000), then a back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that RomneyCare spent $4 million or more per life saved. The actual figure may be much higher if we include other costs incurred by that law. The World Health Organization considers a medical intervention to be “not cost-effective” if it costs more than three times a nation’s per-capita GDP per year of life saved. This in turn suggests that RomneyCare would have to give every person it saves an average of nearly 30 additional years of life to meet the World Health Organization’s criteria for cost-effectiveness. Given that the mortality gains were concentrated in the 35-64 group, that seems like a stretch.

As an economist might put it, this means there are likely to be policies out there that could save a lot more lives than RomneyCare does per dollar spent.

Bill Gardner counters:

Cannon believes that there are policies that would deliver more benefit than Romney- or ObamaCare. If you are a critic of the ACA and this is what you believe, Cannon’s argument obligates you to do that better thing with the money. This poses an acute test for leaders in the 24 states that refused the ACA’s expansion of Medicaid. How many of those states refused to expand Medicaid, but then did nothing else for the health of their uninsured? If politicians in those states just refused the money and let the poor die, they do not have standing to make Cannon’s criticism about paths not taken.

Second, is it just to worry about the cost of health insurance only when we are considering insuring the poor? 55% of the US population had employer-based health insurance in 2011. Because this benefit isn’t taxed, this meant that 55% received a large subsidy for their insurance, including many affluent people. (And I’m sure Michael Cannon hates this, probably more than I do!) If you oppose the expansion of Medicaid, you should also favor the taxation of employee health benefits. Otherwise, you are arguing that we can afford to subsidize the health insurance of the rich, but that it costs too much to do it for the poor.

Sprung sees no viable alternatives to Obamacare on the horizon:

Those who don’t like the ACA can fairly argue that there are better models for extending affordable health insurance to all. … It’s noteworthy, though, that there are almost no Republican elected officials who have proved willing to commit to actual legislation that would purport to “replace” the ACA with an alternative that could make a credible claim to extend health insurance to as many uninsured Americans as the ACA does. Senators Coburn, Burr and Hatch rolled out the outline of such a plan — which looked a lot more like an opening bid to reform the ACA to conservative specs than actual replacement — and their colleagues studiously ignored it.

Suderman worries that Romneycare and Obamacare are unsustainable:

[I]t’s worth remembering that for the past several years, the price tag in Massachusetts has looked unaffordably expensive. In a 2011 review of the state’s health reform published in Health Affairs, a team of researchers looked at the results of the program over the same time frame measured by the new study. What they found was more coverage, more utilization of care—and costs that could not be supported over time. Not in Massachusetts. Not anywhere. “The pre-2010 status quo is not a sustainable option for Massachusetts or the nation,” the report said. Around the same time, state health officials were also describing the program’s costs as unsustainable, warning that, if left unchecked, they will crowd out everything else the government needs to do. Some reforms have been put in place by then, but even still, cost-containment is a challenge—in part because more coverage has led to greater use of care.

McArdle’s bottom line:

I haven’t changed my beliefs radically: I still basically think that health insurance improves mortality rates, but that that improvement is unlikely to be huge if you can get results like Oregon. However, after [Monday’s] report, I’ve revised the probability of “huge benefits” upward, and you should do the same. And beware of those who are only willing to revise their beliefs in one direction.

David Patrikarakos reports that young Ukrainians are training as partisans for a potential guerrilla war with Russia:

Ukraine has 130,000 personnel in its armed forces that could be boosted to about one million with reservists, but few troops are battle-ready while much of their equipment is outdated and unable to function effectively in a modern war situation. Ukraine’s parliament recently allocated six billion hryvnias (about $523 million) for the repair and restoration of military equipment, but given time constraints, improvement is likely to be limited.

As a result, the single biggest threat to a further Russian invasion remains the possibility of a militarized population in urban areas and perhaps the forests—and Moscow knows it.

The epicenter of the struggle for Ukraine’s east these past few weeks has been the small, seemingly unimportant town of Sloviansk. I was there the night its central police station was stormed by pro-Russia separatists, and it was a clear turning point in the crisis. The baseball bat-wielding militia I had seen in the eastern cities of Donetsk and Luhansk had been replaced with professional soldiers clearly dictating events on the ground.

Kyiv has a large strategic reserve of Kalashnikov assault rifles and other light weapons—around 5 million pieces—as a mobilization reserve dating back to Soviet times. It has made clear to the Kremlin that it is now considering the possibility of opening up this stockpile to its citizens in East Ukraine. At least half this reserve is concentrated near Sloviansk and it is the reason that Russian special forces were sent there to secure the area.

Meanwhile, Eli Lake notes, Kiev has solicited the advice of Georgia’s defense minister, Iraki Alasania, who knows a thing or two about being invaded by Russia:

Among Georgia’s tips for Ukraine: hunt moles early; watch for “non-governmental organizations” that are really Moscow’s fronts; seek out encrypted communications from the West; and if Russia does annex more territory, keep humanitarian, economic and cultural lines of communications open without formally recognizing the transfer of turf—it could be a useful way for the government in Kiev to address some of the needs of Ukraine’s Crimean citizens. …

As a general rule, Alasania said it was important “to rely more on diplomatic resources” than the military. He noted that none of the militaries of the former Soviet republics could withstand a full-scale Russian invasion. But the Russian sabotage and provocation operations currently underway? Those have a chance of being countered.

Natasha Loder parses a new study that seeks to explain why Asian-Americans tend to do so well in school:

Although Asian Americans do often come from better educated and higher income families, socio-demographic factors could not explain the achievement gap between Asians and whites. … Being brainier isn’t the answer either. When the pair looked at cognitive ability as measured by standardised tests, Asian-Americans were not different from their white peers. Instead Dr [Amy] Hsin and Dr [Yu] Xie find that the achievement gap can be explained through harder work—as measured by teacher assessments of student work habits and motivation. (Although the authors warn that this form of assessment will capture both true behavioural differences as well as a teacher’s perception of differences.)

What might explain harder work? The authors point to the fact Asian-Americans are likely to be immigrants or children of immigrants who, as a group, tend to be more optimistic. These are people who have made a big move in search of better opportunities. Immigration is a “manifestation of that optimism through effort, that you can have a better life”. Added to this mix is a general cultural belief among Asian-Americans that achievement comes with effort. We know that children who believe ability is innate are more inclined to give up if something doesn’t come naturally. An understanding that success requires hard work—not merely an aptitude—is therefore useful. This finding is worth bearing in mind when considering the current fuss over new tests in mathematics, as some parents complain that they are now too hard.

Tom Jacobs examines how the study squares with the prevailing theories:

So what about the “tiger mom” hypothesis, which suggests Asian mothers demand more of their kids, and see to it that they achieve?

Alice Park considers the findings through the lens of her own experience as an Asian-American:

Hsin also found that Asian-American students were more likely to have more self-image problems and more conflicted relationships with their parents than their white counterparts. The pressure to perform seems to take a toll on those who fail to meet expectations as well as those who do – for the latter, the expectation to be successful makes the achievement less satisfactory and less fulfilling.

So Tiger Moms may be on to something, however obvious it may seem: hard work does pay off, albeit at the cost of some self-esteem. But it may be giving them too much credit to say they do it alone. And looking back, I have to admit, however begrudgingly, that all that discipline has probably made me a more organized and confident adult. But don’t tell my mom.

In any case, noted “tiger mom” Amy Chua is feeling pretty vindicated, Max Ehrenfreund reports:

Chua and her husband Jed Rubenfeld, both professors at Yale Law School, contend the study is evidence that aspects of Asian-American culture are partly responsible for Asian children’s good grades. The couple published a new book earlier this year arguing that certain cultural traits can explain the successes of various immigrant groups in the country’s history.

“There can be no doubt that these practices and attitudes are not exclusive to Asians, and can be incredibly helpful to people outside those communities,” Rubenfeld said. The couple added that a mere change in attitude would not be enough to eliminate the obstacles confronting black children. “When it comes to America’s poorest groups, it’s pretty clear what the true causes of poverty are. You have to start with history, you know, centuries of slavery and mass incarceration,” Chua said.

Freddie deBoer advocates for an open border policy as a form of humanitarian intervention:

For gay, transgender, and bisexual people in places like Russia and Uganda; for Syrians of all stripes; for those in Crimea and eastern Ukraine who fear either Putin or reprisals against linguistically and ethnically Russian Ukrainians; for those in Venezuela who agitate against the Maduro government; for women in Saudi Arabia; for liberal dissidents in Iran; for oppressed people the world over, legal entrance into the United States would represent protection against those forces that some would have us defeat with force of arms. The beauty of it is that we can accept people without having to stake a claim on every legitimate internal controversy; we merely can do so out of a desire to prevent the violence that often attends internal strife that we have no business adjudicating. I don’t suggest this as a panacea, but then, if the last decade should teach us anything, it’s the inability of military intervention to secure humanitarian outcomes. I’m willing to guess that the odds for success with this kind of humanitarian intervention are far, far higher than freedom delivered via smart bomb.

David Frum, on the other hand, wants talent-focused immigration reform:

Americans console themselves that second and third generations of immigrants will do better than the first. Many immigrants do rise in just this way. Yet the evidence for many of the largest immigrant groups—immigrants from Mexico and Central America—is not encouraging. The second generation does better than the first … but progress stalls after that. Even in the fourth generation, Mexican-American education levels lag far behind those of Anglo Americans, according to the definitive study by Edward Telles and Vilma Ortiz, Generations of Exclusion.

What holds back immigrant progress? Discrimination? Inherited cultural patterns? The economic and cultural obstacles of a society where unskilled labor no longer pays a living wage? Whatever the reason, the outcome is the same. Human capital extends across generations. Those who arrive possessing that capital bequeath it to their descendants. Those who arrive lacking it bequeath that same lack. Progress across generations is slow at best and non-existent at worst—especially as low-skilled migrants to the United States adopt the same single-parent family pattern that prevails among the poorer half of the native-born population.

A new Brookings report warns that business dynamism and entrepreneurship are on the decline throughout the US. Danielle Kurtzleben explains why this is cause for concern:

[T]he idea at work here is the economic concept of creative destruction. New, more productive firms replace older firms, and workers get matched with better jobs over time when there’s more of this business “churn,” the authors write. A more stagnant business atmosphere, in other words, can lead to a more stagnant economy. Exactly why it’s happening, however, is more of a mystery. …

The jump in the exit rate has likely been a function of the recession, says says Robert Litan, one of the study’s co-authors and a nonresident senior fellow at Brookings, but the factors behind the falling entry rate are foggier. The fact that the trend is so long-standing, for example, suggests that it’s not one presidential administration or another that’s at fault, nor is it the recession. What’s behind it may be something less concrete are more ephemeral — an economy-wide decision to play it safe, from the richest CEOs to the plucky wannabe entrepreneurs.

Drum suspects that the proliferation of national chains is largely to blame for this trend:

I’d really like to see a breakdown of what kinds of business creation have declined. My first guess here is that the decline hasn’t been among the sort of Silicon Valley firms that drive innovation, but among more prosaic small firms: restaurants, dry cleaners, hardware stores, and so forth. The last few decades have seen an explosion among national chains and big box retailers, and it only makes sense that this has driven down the number of new entrants in these sectors. When there’s a McDonald’s and a Burger King on every corner, there’s just less room for people to open up their own lunch spots. But if there’s been a decline in the number of new small retailers, that may or may not say anything about the dynamism of the American economy. It just tells us what we already know: national chains, with their marketing efficiencies and highly efficient logistics, have taken over the retail sector. Amazon and other internet retailers are only hastening this trend.

Morrissey, however, fingers regulation for the culprit:

The reasons can’t be that unknown. Since the 1970s, the federal regulatory environment has grown exponentially, with its power amplified by the federal courts. Even short eras of regulatory reduction resulted in only moderate reversals of that decline, which quickly disappeared. Look, for instance, at the period between 1983-88 during the heyday of Reaganomics and deregulation, and the shallower gains during the George W. Bush administration.

Richard Florida notes one of the study’s main limitations:

The authors caution that their data cover the period through early 2011, so it’s possible that “these trends have reversed—or at least stabilized—since then.” The late economist Christopher Freeman, invoking Schumpeter’s “creative destruction,” long ago argued that economic crises set the stage for great bursts of innovation. Patent activity has ticked up since the crisis, and venture capital activity has surged in recent years.

But there are long lags between the onset of crises and these rebounds in innovation and entrepreneurial activity that power long-run economic growth. These Great Resets are generational events, with much longer time lines than typical business cycles.

More and more individuals need glasses:

Over the past 15 years, the world has witnessed an explosion of cases of myopia, or nearsightedness. A quarter of the world’s population, or 1.6 billion people, now suffer from some form of myopia, according to the Myopia Institute. If unchecked, those numbers are estimated to reach one-third of the world’s population by 2020. While myopia has always affected a fraction of the population, at least in countries that have kept records, the condition has recently reached unprecented rates among children and young adults.

A National Institutes of Health study published in 2009 showed that myopia prevalence in the United States increased by 66 percent between the early 1970’s and the early 2000’s.

Too much time indoors could be part of the problem:

Kathryn Rose, a researcher of visual disorders at the University of Sydney’s college of health sciences, recently concluded  that spending too much time indoors also has a huge impact on eyesight deterioration. Rose said in a CNN interview that she was not sure how time spent using digital media relates to myopia progress, but that outdoor light has been shown to have a positive effect on vision. Studies from the U.S., Singapore, and China confirm a link between the time spent outdoors and the prevention of myopia, Rose said.

Saladin Ahmed provides a brief history of comic book censorship. He claims that during a “15-year span beginning in the late 1930s, the comic book racks of America’s newsstands were bursting with four-color contradictions.” But this state of affairs “was swiftly and mercilessly dismantled in 1954 by the newly formed Comics Code Authority”:

Spurred in part by the sensationalist book Seduction of the Innocent (a ridiculous sort of Reefer Madness for comic books), the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency turned an angry eye toward comics, and most publishers felt that heavy-handed regulation — perhaps even outright banning — was imminent. Comic book publishers, in consultation with right-wing politicians, formed the Comics Code Authority, a self-censorship group, in the hopes that this would forestall government intervention in the industry. New York Magistrate Charles F. Murphy, a “specialist in juvenile delinquency” (and a strident racist), was chosen to head the Authority and to devise its self-policing “code of ethics and standards.”

What this meant in practice:

The Code … contained the surprising provision that “ridicule or attack on any religious or racial group is never permissible.” Given the countless depictions of monkey-like Japanese and minstrel-show black people in Golden Age comics, one might think this provision a good thing. But Murphy soon made it clear that this provision really meant that black people in comic books would no longer be tolerated, in any form. When EC Comics reprinted the science fiction story “Judgment Day” by Al Feldstein and Joe Orlando (which had originally been printed to little controversy before the Code), Murphy claimed the story violated the Code, and that the black astronaut had to be made white in order for the story to run.

EC defiantly ran the story anyway, but Murphy had made a target of them, and the company was essentially forced out of the comics business. The message was clear: If comics were to be tolerated in this new postwar order, they had to be purged of assertive women, of people of color, of challenges to authority, and even of working-class, urban slang. And so the Comics Code hacked and mangled comics until they fit into the patriarchal, conservative, white suburban social order that was taking over every other sphere of American life.

Update from a reader:

This is a classic anti-comic book propaganda. Scare tactics are classic!

(Image: Panels from the original “Judgment Day” comic)