NYT rejects economics: “Patients don’t act according to market models when the “skin in the game” is, well, their own skin.”
If patients aren’t allowed to control their own money for day-to-day medical needs, who is? Certainly not doctors and hospitals — we’ve tried that but it didn’t work. That just leaves insurers and government. Is that what we want? I doubt it. Whoever has the skin in the game gets to make the rules. I’d like that to be patients rather than payers.
At last, something on which NICHOLAS KRISTOF and I agree, on principle: that rape kits should be tested — ie., DNA identified, so that the samples can possibly be matched to individuals arrested for other rapes or other crimes. It’s also an outrage that the victims themselves, in some states, have to pay to have the tests done!
I don’t think federal grants are the answer, however. Properly understood, justice is the first duty of local governments – usually counties. That shouldn’t be a luxury, it should be their first priority in spending.
Novel approach to “fallacy of equivocation” –confusing the “skin in the game” phrase with an anecdote involving skin.
But it’s not clear how the anecdote relates to health care reform in any meaningful way. Is the author attempting to say ACA would have changed the outcome? Is she faulting Romney for _not_ proposing something that would change the outcome? Does anyone understand the point of the NYT article?
I’d want to see the break down by alleged crime. For example, kits can be requested (but not paid for) by parents outraged by consensual statutory rape cases involving their child.
“Black dropouts are more likely to spend at least a year in prison than to get married.”
Education is imperative to the advancement of minorities. While they are not getting married, I’m sure they are having children who are the victims of this terrible statistic.
By the time they turn 18, one in four black children will have experienced the imprisonment of a parent.
“Among low-skill black men, spending time in prison has become a normative life event, furthering their segregation from mainstream society,” This is very saddening. This caught my attention since just this past weekend I watched a tv show about certain prisons around the country and how some of these immates stay “busy”, and the majority of the immates shown were African-American. Not only that, but they also seemed to be pretty okay with the fact that they were incarcerated…one of them was only 23 years old and has been incarcerated for only 2 months, and he admitted he knew he was going to go to prison at some point in his life, he was already ready for it. He said “it runs in my family…there was no reason for me to be the exception.”
Lancer, there’s all kinds of rape! Legitimate, forcible, romantic, date, statutory, sneaky, natural, that which is asked for, etc etc etc. You’ve got to stay up-to-date!
If patients aren’t allowed to control their own money for day-to-day medical needs, who is? Certainly not doctors and hospitals — we’ve tried that but it didn’t work. That just leaves insurers and government. Is that what we want? I doubt it. Whoever has the skin in the game gets to make the rules. I’d like that to be patients rather than payers.
At last, something on which NICHOLAS KRISTOF and I agree, on principle: that rape kits should be tested — ie., DNA identified, so that the samples can possibly be matched to individuals arrested for other rapes or other crimes. It’s also an outrage that the victims themselves, in some states, have to pay to have the tests done!
I don’t think federal grants are the answer, however. Properly understood, justice is the first duty of local governments – usually counties. That shouldn’t be a luxury, it should be their first priority in spending.
No evidence equals no conviction. Something should be done about this immediately.
What a wonderful strawman of Romney’s policies from the NYT.
Novel approach to “fallacy of equivocation” –confusing the “skin in the game” phrase with an anecdote involving skin.
But it’s not clear how the anecdote relates to health care reform in any meaningful way. Is the author attempting to say ACA would have changed the outcome? Is she faulting Romney for _not_ proposing something that would change the outcome? Does anyone understand the point of the NYT article?
I’ll play the devil’s advocate here.
I’d want to see the break down by alleged crime. For example, kits can be requested (but not paid for) by parents outraged by consensual statutory rape cases involving their child.
“Black dropouts are more likely to spend at least a year in prison than to get married.”
Education is imperative to the advancement of minorities. While they are not getting married, I’m sure they are having children who are the victims of this terrible statistic.
By the time they turn 18, one in four black children will have experienced the imprisonment of a parent.
“Among low-skill black men, spending time in prison has become a normative life event, furthering their segregation from mainstream society,” This is very saddening. This caught my attention since just this past weekend I watched a tv show about certain prisons around the country and how some of these immates stay “busy”, and the majority of the immates shown were African-American. Not only that, but they also seemed to be pretty okay with the fact that they were incarcerated…one of them was only 23 years old and has been incarcerated for only 2 months, and he admitted he knew he was going to go to prison at some point in his life, he was already ready for it. He said “it runs in my family…there was no reason for me to be the exception.”
By most accounts, hundreds of thousands of these untested [rape] kits are stacked up around the country. There is no such thing as legitimate rape!
Lancer, there’s all kinds of rape! Legitimate, forcible, romantic, date, statutory, sneaky, natural, that which is asked for, etc etc etc. You’ve got to stay up-to-date!