Comments for Urban Humanist

Comment on Mankiw cooks the numbers to argue against expanded healthcare by Mark Tebeau

Mark Tebeau — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 00:33:36 +0000

Surely, the cost/price of healthcare (including efficacy) will make some treatments too expensive, but that will happen regardless whether there is health care reform or not. In that sense, the argument is obvious. Although that said, Mankiw’s reasoning about how such decisions are made does not reflect the reality of most human decision making, as any reader of Freakonomics would suggest.

If Mankiw is using his argument to inveigh against the current debate, then this is really an argument that is all smoke and mirrors, meaning he seeks to change the subject and argue something else. In this case, he argues that healthcare will never be equal as an argument against it. Sure, it won’t be equal under any plan, just as its not equal now. But, that is beside the point and it is not what our society is debating.

President Obama is proposing an expansion of access to healthcare (insurance, public option, etc.) and expanding coverage, even if mandated.

For some more interesting reading, I suggest folks read: http://cheeptalk.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/the-price-of-drugs/

Comment on Tea Party Racism by Steve

Steve — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 21:15:09 +0000

sure…. good luck with your crusade as the defender of purity

Comment on Tea Party Racism by Mark Tebeau

Mark Tebeau — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:51:58 +0000

Thank you Steve for your posts to this and the other post. Bigotry is an ugly thing. It is good to be reminded just how widespread it continues to be.

Comment on Tea Party Racism by Steve

Steve — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 21:47:21 +0000

Now if the sign had said this:

“I would hope that a wise white woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a black male who hasn’t lived that life.”

THAT would be racism. This sign makes President Obama’s ethnic heritage part of the issue. That is the definition of racism, and I hope that you agree.

Comment on Mankiw cooks the numbers to argue against expanded healthcare by Steve

Steve — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 21:27:50 +0000

I will have to take the time to read them… but I reiterate, those numbers were superfluous. His inaccuracy, if it was an inaccuracy, does little to taint the actual argument. Let’s face it, it’s a pretty obvious argument.

Comment on Mankiw cooks the numbers to argue against expanded healthcare by Mark Tebeau

Mark Tebeau — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:27:54 +0000

Thank you for the link. There is no reference in the Wall Street Journal to where that number came from, making it no less dubious. Continuing to publish and repeat deceptions does not make the deception true. Only a conservative serving in the Bush administration (Mankiw) would believe that such an approach approximated objectivity or truth.

I gave references to peer-reviewed, meta-analyses, which is a state-of-the art statistical practice. The readers can choose their source. I will only note that mine was produced by scientific practice, is transparent, and follows a peer-review practice. My invitation is for someone to show me where Mankiw’s number *really* comes from–meaning the study, the research…

Comment on Tea Party Racism by Mark Tebeau

Mark Tebeau — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:21:05 +0000

First, President Obama is not African. His father was African; he was born in the United States, which allows this sign the additional advantage of parroting the crazy claims of so-called “birthers.” I explain how its racist in the post. This sign makes President Obama’s ethnic heritage part of the issue. That is the definition of racism. Example, Joe Wilson yelled to the President that he “lied.” He did not yell, “you lying African.” The former attacks the President and a statement by the President but it is not, ipso facto, racist. The second uses the heritage of the individual as an epithet. That is the definition of racism. Only someone who actively suppresses their faculties for logical reasoning can’t tell the difference.

I don’t know the “kook signs” to which you refer, so its hard to say. Also, I would note that America has a history of racism that is deep and long. Slavery based on race was the nation’s original sin. Jim Crow laws sought to remake the nation along racial lines, once the Civil War settled the slavery issue. And, it was not until the Civil Rights movement, about a generation ago, that African Americans could participate in the American political process without recrimination. The sign that you seem to think is value neutral calls forth that history as an issue with the President.

I am sorry for your inability to recognize the difference between civil discourse and inappropriate rantings.

Comment on Tea Party Racism by Steve

Steve — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:03:16 +0000

I’m confused. How exactly is this racist?

A reference to race is racist?

And what if a few signs were completely racist? Did the kook signs at anti-war rallies hurt the case against the war? This is an absurd assertion.

Comment on Mankiw cooks the numbers to argue against expanded healthcare by Steve

Steve — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:58:04 +0000

From Mankiw’s blog…

Addendum: In case you are curious, the $150,000 figure for statins comes from Abraham Verghese, Professor and Senior Associate Chair for the Theory and Practice of Medicine at Stanford University.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204005504574235751720822322.html

Comment on Ohio Civil War 150 by Sharon Dean, Director of Collections Services, OHS

Sharon Dean, Director of Collections Services, OHS — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 01:12:50 +0000

I would like to add that not only is this site well laid out, but it’s really infomative even for the non-expert like myself. This collaboration between OHS and CSU is a real model for future statewide partnerships. Cudos to all who worked on this!