Jamie Oliver eloquently discusses the dire impact of our abysmal teaching about nutrition in the U.S. Check out also this lengthy Byran Appleyard/TimesOnline article on Art DeVanyís continuing research on the integration of good nutrition with sound exercise protocols. Good information for increasing the chances of enjoying a healthy life.
The New York Times’ Floyd Norris is still having a hard time giving up the tired and largely debunked Enron narrative.
This time, Norris applies the Enron narrative to Greece, which supposedly hid its true financial condition from honest investors through engaging in complex derivative transactions with the ever-present and greedy investment bankers.
There is one big problem with Norris’ morality tale.
It’s not true.
As University of Houston finance professor Craig Pirrong points out in this blog post that runs rings around Norris and the Times’ dubious analysis, what Greece was doing in using swaps engineered by the investment banks to finance its way into the European Monetary Union has been well known since the early part of this decade.
Thus, as Professor Pirrong points out, “nobody . . . has any more reason to be shocked about these transactions than Captain Reynaud had to be shocked about gambling going on at Rick’s.”
That includes Floyd Norris and the New York Times.
Uwe Reinhardt posted this insightful Economix post last week in which he bores in on the key issue to be resolved in reforming the U.S. health care finance system:
I could easily offer every American family a health insurance policy it could afford, simply by varying judiciously the annual deductible, the coinsurance rate, upper limits on items ostensibly covered by the policy and exclusions from coverage of sundry services or products ó for example, mental health services or certain specialty drugs.
The policy might be a sham; but it sure would be cheap.
Health insurance is just a means by which needed health care can be made ìaffordableî to Americans when they fall ill. Therefore the proper target of health policy should be the familyís total outlay on health care, including out-of-pocket spending. That total outlay on ìneeded health careî should be made ìaffordable.î
Which requires us to define concretely, for practical purposes, what we mean by ìhealth careî and ìaffordable,î pedantic as that may sound. Politicians should be forced to be utterly clear about it. [. . .]
President Obama could make this idea practical by using a visual device such as the table [above]. In that table ìdisposable incomeî is defined as all personal income from whatever source minus all personal income tax payments and other government deductions. The numbers are annual. . . .
Professor Reinhardt makes a good point about the disingenuous nature of health insurance. As I noted here, most forms of health insurance ñ particularly the employer-based kind — insulate consumers from understanding the truce cost of their health care choices. As a result, most consumers ñ and virtually all legislators in Washington ñ have no idea on what amount of health care costs are ìaffordable.î Most insureds are pleased that someone else is footing the bill and simply donít want to lose that perk.
Health insurance is largely the product of bad governmental policy (wage controls during World War II) and, as is often the case with such policies, there are unintended consequences that are even worse than the misdirected governmental policy. In this case, we have two generations of Americans who have been largely insulated from needing to know the true cost of some of their most fundamental choices and needs in life.
Such ignorance is now hindering reform of the fractured U.S. health care finance system. But any health care finance reform that does not rely at least in part on reigniting a consumer market to control costs will likely be even more expensive and less satisfying than the current system.
This WaPo article from last week on a recent WaPo/ABC News poll was interesting:
. . . opinions nationwide remain closely divided, but two-thirds of all Americans now say gay and lesbian couples should be able to have the same rights as heterosexual couples through civil unions.
In a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, 47 percent say gay marriages should be legal, with 31 percent saying they feel that way "strongly." Intensity is stronger among opponents, however: overall, half say such marriages should be illegal, including 42 percent who say so strongly.
Civil unions draw broader support. Two-thirds now say they favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to form civil unions that would give them many of the same legal rights as married couples.
Frankly, this is one of those contentious political issues for which there appears to be a simple solution. But implementing the solution will take some clear thinking, which is in short supply these days in our legislative circles.
The bottom line is that the state has no business being involved in the ìmarriage business.î That should be left to churches, some of which will approve gay marriages and some of which will not.
On the other hand, the state should provide for civil unions between same-sex and opposite-sex couples to promote societal stability through conferring the same rights relating to property, family, inheritance, etc. that are presently conferred through the institution of civil marriage.
For practical and legal purposes, such civil unions would be the same as civil marriages. And, as the poll numbers above reflect, most folks donít have a problem with providing the same contractual and legal rights to gay couples through civil unions as opposite-sex couples presently enjoy through civil marriage. However, because most states presently only provide for civil marriage, the use of the term ìmarriageî becomes a hot button issue that provokes needless opposition to the implementation of the civil union concept in regard to same-sex couples to promote legitimate societal interests.
Thus, the solution is to have the state get out of the marriage business entirely and provide civil unions to opposite-sex and and same-sex couples. Many couples would still choose to get married in religious ceremonies, which is fine. But a couple that does not have access to marriage in a church would no longer be deprived of the legal and contractual rights that most states presently confer upon only married couples.
It sure seems as if this solution would solve the primary legal issues relating to continued state bans on gay marriages. Moreover, it would relegate the debate on marriage between same-sex couples to the churches and extract it from the political arena.
Whatís not to like about that?
The lads sure did exude charisma, donít you think?
Don’t miss George Mason University economic professor Russ Roberts’ lucid, four minute statement to a House Committee condemning the federal government’s bailout of large financial institutions. The written statement is here. As I’ve been saying all along, it’s not rocket science.
Got to love the way Friedman ignores the contentious introduction to the questions and maintains the integrity of intellectual discourse. H/T Almost Chosen People.
In this clever sketch, That Mitchell and Webb Look channel the mentality behind the legislation discussed in yesterdayís post.
Does anyone really think for a moment that this legislation is going to have any meaningful impact on its intended purpose:
The Obama administration will begin a drive this week to expel Pepsi, French fries and Snickers bars from the nationís schools in hopes of reducing the number of children who get fat during their school years.
In legislation, soon to be introduced, candy and sugary beverages would be banned and many schools would be required to offer more nutritious fare. [. . .]
The legislation would reauthorize the governmentís school breakfast and lunch programs. It aims to transform the eating habits of many of the nationís children and teenagers, . . .
No word yet on whether the legislation is also going to attempt to bar students from going to the neighborhood grocery or burger stand after school and buy the Pepsi, French fries and Snickers that the do-gooders wonít let them buy during school.
On the other hand, an initiative that really might generate some beneficial health changes ñ such as providing each studentís family lower health insurance premiums in return for family members maintaining a non-obese weight ñ remains illegal under applicable governmental regulatory schemes.
We really do find creative ways to waste time and energy, donít we?
Dave Berri just posted his final NFL quarterback ratings for the 2009 season, which are always interesting.
Schaub moved up into the top quarter of NFL QBís, but he has a ways to go before he is playing on the level that Rivers and Brees played on this past season. Interestingly, there is a big drop off in production between Schaub at no. 8 to Roethlisberger at no. 9.
Except for the truly great ones, QBís are notoriously inconsistent from season to season, especially in comparison to basketball players and hitters in baseball. For example, Favre went from the 27th ranked QB last season to no. 4 this past season! Thatís due primarily to the more complementary nature of football. Stated another way, itís hard to be a productive QB when laying on oneís back or running for oneís life.
Thus, statistics really donít tell us much about NFL QBís (except when that QB is as bad as David Carr) other than the fact that a particular QB performed well this season does not necessarily mean that he will do so again next season.
Are you listening, Chron cheerleaders?