Socialism's tolerance problem

There's been plenty of great write-ups about why the death of Hugo Chavez isn't a tragedy. My favorites are from Nick Gillespie at Reason.com, Michael Moynihan at The Daily Beast, a Venezuelan citizen in a CNN.com comment and, most surprising, Zack Beauchamp at ThinkProgress. I also rediscovered a great piece from Christopher Hitchens about his impressions from meeting a deranged Chavez and the shameless propaganda employed when Chavez declared himself the reincarnation of Simón Bolívar while desecrating his corpse.

Every one of them is a gem, and props to Beauchamp for revealing that much of the supposed success of Chavez's anti-poverty policies really come from an ongoing South American trend.

So with that out of the way, there is something important I want to express about the difference between socialist and capitalist nations. Only one tolerates the other when they are in charge.

In capitalist nations, you're allowed to speak in support of socialism. You can have stupid little coffee houses or dirty book stores devoted to the subject. You're even allowed to build your own little Marxist commune and count down the days until it falls apart.

In socialist nations, supporting capitalism is a criminal offense. Basic human rights like freedom of speech are stamped down and spreading unauthorized messages is a crime against the state. Trying to establish a capitalist subculture can mean execution.

If I was a Venezuelan Chavez would have had me destroyed. If he was an American he would have been mocked, just as he is being mocked now.

It's clear to see which system has the moral high ground.
Read more...

Wikileaks question

If Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is executed, who will leak the video of his death?
Read more...

Why is insurance such a difficult concept?

Do people not understand what insurance is?

With all this talk about health insurance costs, I find it hard to believe that most of public grasps the idea of spreading out risk - which is the entire idea of insurance.

Everyone knows the argument to force health insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, but there is no push to get car insurance to cover accidents that occurred before the policy was signed.

How many people are upset that their health insurance only covers catastrophes, and not routine checkups? Meanwhile, no car insurance company covers oil changes. If they did, you would see mechanics raise the price of an oil change. They know the customers won't shop around as carefully if they are shielded from the price.

The idea of insurance is simple. If there's a group of 100 people that are afraid a Very Bad Thing will happen to them, and the Very Bad Thing will take $1,000 to fix, but it will only happen to one percent of the people in the pool, than everyone can pay $10 into a pool, and the unlucky person will use that money to fix the Very Bad Thing. The risk is spread out to everyone, so no one individual bears the full cost.

It's a little more complicated than that in practice- there are operating costs to pay for the insurance program and profits to justify running it. Those profits are a lot lower than people realize. Some people are riskier to insure than others and plans don't cover just one Very Bad Thing, they cover different combination of problems. There's a lot of math, but the reductionist model still gets the basic idea down.

With health insurance, women tend to use more money from the pool. Insurance companies balanced that out by charging them more. It's the opposite with auto insurance, as men have more accidents than women, and insurance companies charge them more as a result.

But one of those is about to change. The New York Times reported this week, when it reported that health insurance companies can no longer charge men and women different amounts.

Or as the article put it, discriminate:

"In the broadest sense, the new health care law forbids sex discrimination in health insurance. Previously, there was no such ban, and insurance companies took full advantage of the void."

The article goes on to say that while a lot of changes in the new health care law won't happen until 2014;

"...some changes should actually happen much sooner, because the law’s overarching ban on sex discrimination takes effect immediately. The legalese outlawing sex discrimination is not easy to find or to parse, but it refers to existing laws, like the Civil Rights Act and Title IX, to say that the same protections apply to people seeking health care and insurance."

This is not discrimination, this is mathematics. Do health insurance companies discriminate when they charge smokers more? Do life insurance companies discriminate when they charge older people more? Do car insurance companies discriminate when they charge more to people with bad driving records?

Without a trace of surprise, the New York Times article does not mention if car insurance companies should charge men the same as women. It even acknowledges "women used the health care system more than men," which means women use more health insurance dollars than men do. Instead of challenging this decision with any opposition sources, the article repeats the activist slogan, "Being a woman is no longer a pre-existing condition."

I've seen a lot of anti-science on both the left and the right this decade, but this is the first case of an anti-math bias I've ever seen.

Read more...