Books and other stuff I feel like discussing
By education and experience - Accountant with a specialty in taxation. Formerly a CPA (license has lapsed). Masters degree in law of taxation from University of Denver. Now retired. Part time work during baseball season as receptionist & switchboard operator for the Colorado Rockies. This gig feeds my soul in ways I have trouble articulating. One daughter, and four grandchildren. I share the house with two cats; a big goof of a cat called Grinch (named as a joke for his easy going "whatever" disposition); and Lady, a shelter adoptee with a regal bearing and sweet little soprano voice. I would be very bereft if it ever becomes necessary to keep house without a cat.
Read/Post Comments (4)
SCOTUS June 28, 2012
I was relieved and pleased when I thought to check CNN's website late this morning. I listened to a couple of hours of coverage on NPR late this afternoon, and continued to be puzzled by some of the objections I heard. None of the comments raised in opposition today were new, or if there were new comments, I missed them.
My experiences in the last forty odd years has convinced me of the truth of almost everything I learned in the one economics class I needed as an undergrad. I'm confident that what my professor called "the economies of scale" will work to smooth the implementation of the law which the Court upheld this morning. Since, as far as I can see, our American health care industry has not operated in such a way to take advantage of the economies of scale, it's hard for most of us to predict what it will be like. But I don't think it will be an unmitigated disaster.
I continue to be disappointed in the lack of historic understanding of the so-called "individual mandate" and the constant objections that this is a "liberal takeover." This concept has its origins in the thinking of several conservative planners and analysts, going back quite a few years. Conservative and libertarian in the sense that each person should endeavor to pay his or her own way and not rely on the rest of society to foot the bill. I see the conservative objections as, in effect, speaking out of both sides of the mouth.
And on a more personal, visceral level - I see the entire range of objection to the law as a pursuit by the haves to hold on to all they've managed to amass so far, and to let the have-nots fend for themselves. I will add at this point that I see myself as one of the haves. If my taxes are, in part, going to go to help a young family care for a seriously ill child or other family member, I'm OK with it. I have trouble formulating a response to someone whose public pronouncements seem to indicate that I should not be OK with it. And when I hear one more reference to "the American people" as objecting to the law, my hackles go up. Way up. I'm an American, and I do not object.
I usually don't write about politics, and probably won't again for some time. Why I made an exception tonight is a question I can't answer.
My experiences in the last forty odd years has convinced me of the truth of almost everything I learned in the one economics class I needed as an undergrad. I'm confident that what my professor called "the economies of scale" will work to smooth the implementation of the law which the Court upheld this morning. Since, as far as I can see, our American health care industry has not operated in such a way to take advantage of the economies of scale, it's hard for most of us to predict what it will be like. But I don't think it will be an unmitigated disaster.
I continue to be disappointed in the lack of historic understanding of the so-called "individual mandate" and the constant objections that this is a "liberal takeover." This concept has its origins in the thinking of several conservative planners and analysts, going back quite a few years. Conservative and libertarian in the sense that each person should endeavor to pay his or her own way and not rely on the rest of society to foot the bill. I see the conservative objections as, in effect, speaking out of both sides of the mouth.
And on a more personal, visceral level - I see the entire range of objection to the law as a pursuit by the haves to hold on to all they've managed to amass so far, and to let the have-nots fend for themselves. I will add at this point that I see myself as one of the haves. If my taxes are, in part, going to go to help a young family care for a seriously ill child or other family member, I'm OK with it. I have trouble formulating a response to someone whose public pronouncements seem to indicate that I should not be OK with it. And when I hear one more reference to "the American people" as objecting to the law, my hackles go up. Way up. I'm an American, and I do not object.
I usually don't write about politics, and probably won't again for some time. Why I made an exception tonight is a question I can't answer.
Read/Post Comments (4)
Previous Entry :: Next Entry
Back to Top
