Comments for Of Bald Men and Bears http://baldbears.wordpress.com 2 Kings 2:23-24 Sun, 01 Nov 2009 17:42:17 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on An Amusing Way to Spend an Hour by A Free Spirit http://baldbears.wordpress.com/2006/12/13/an-amusing-way-to-spend-an-hour/#comment-2163 A Free Spirit Sun, 01 Nov 2009 17:42:17 +0000 http://baldbears.wordpress.com/2006/12/13/an-amusing-way-to-spend-an-hour/#comment-2163 I have an idea for a new sort of biblical (and other religious text) hermeneutic: namely, identifying and extracting all of the passages that could involve the tinge of the writer's or the religion's self-interest. What sort of text would emerge? If you are interested, pls see my post at http://deligentia.wordpress.com/2009/11/01/self-interest-in-religion-and-the-related-conflicts-of-interest/ I have an idea for a new sort of biblical (and other religious text) hermeneutic: namely, identifying and extracting all of the passages that could involve the tinge of the writer’s or the religion’s self-interest. What sort of text would emerge? If you are interested, pls see my post at http://deligentia.wordpress.com/2009/11/01/self-interest-in-religion-and-the-related-conflicts-of-interest/

]]> Comment on Bananaphone by zunedita373 http://baldbears.wordpress.com/2005/04/13/bananaphone/#comment-2162 zunedita373 Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:06:35 +0000 http://baldbears.wordpress.com/2005/04/13/bananaphone/#comment-2162 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JMgW080b0o Man, those JibJab guys crack me up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JMgW080b0o

Man, those JibJab guys crack me up.

]]> Comment on I believe in God the Creator… by A Free Spirit http://baldbears.wordpress.com/2008/09/30/i-believe-in-god-the-creator/#comment-2161 A Free Spirit Sat, 24 Oct 2009 19:54:10 +0000 http://baldbears.wordpress.com/?p=604#comment-2161 So what does it mean to say that the source of existence (i.e., God) is love? I would argue the question points to the metaphysics of love rather than simply saying that God creates existence (or, the world) because God loves it. If you want to check out my post, pls see: http://deligentia.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/deciphering-god-is-love/ So what does it mean to say that the source of existence (i.e., God) is love? I would argue the question points to the metaphysics of love rather than simply saying that God creates existence (or, the world) because God loves it. If you want to check out my post, pls see: http://deligentia.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/deciphering-god-is-love/

]]> Comment on Incentivize, Don’t Nationalize by Jacob http://baldbears.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/incentivize-dont-nationalize/#comment-2154 Jacob Fri, 12 Jun 2009 22:30:25 +0000 http://baldbears.wordpress.com/?p=829#comment-2154 I don't really like sites that always require me to use ReCaptcha (or something like it) every time I comment. I might in the future, but I don't think so right now. You'll have to lobby Andrew. I don’t really like sites that always require me to use ReCaptcha (or something like it) every time I comment. I might in the future, but I don’t think so right now.

You’ll have to lobby Andrew.

]]> Comment on Incentivize, Don’t Nationalize by Jacob http://baldbears.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/incentivize-dont-nationalize/#comment-2153 Jacob Fri, 12 Jun 2009 22:29:24 +0000 http://baldbears.wordpress.com/?p=829#comment-2153 Heath-- I agree with you that there can be no "perfect" weight, etc... I'm no expert on the specifics, but I would have to think that some of that could be taken into account. The Devil, of course, would be in the details. Ben-- I think that the idea is indeed that, by incentivizing exercise, not smoking, etc..., the total amount of health care costs will decrease. Safeway has dramatically slashed their costs not by refusing to insure some of their employees (at least as far as I could tell from the editorial), but by giving big discounts to those who are in the best shape. This encourages more people toward better health, and that decreases the overall health care costs of the company. The insurance company can then charge lower premiums because it is paying out for fewer health expenses. I think this point is important to the overall argument of an incentive-based health care policy. I'm not talking about limiting health insurance any more than it is now, but I am talking about making it possible to reduce your payments (because of reduced overhead costs to the company) through a better lifestyle, just as you can reduce your auto payments through better driving. In this case, I think incentives will work far better than nationalization. Also, I am very uncomfortable with the idea of taxing unhealthy foods for one simple reason: taxes don't go away. If doughnuts, for example, become so heavily taxed that people no longer want to buy them, then there will be a net decrease in doughnut sales. If this happens, then that tax revenue will dry up, leaving <i>x</i> government program without the funds it has been depending on. When this happens, the government typically doesn't close shop on the program -- instead, the government simply looks for another target to tax. Perhaps this time, Ben, the government will turn their eye toward a diploma tax. So, what started out as a tax for the really unhealthy foods (which we didn't really care about, because we didn't eat too many of them anyway) turned into a tax on the things we really loved. I just don't think that the United States federal government is the best place to try to micro-manage what you eat, how much you exercise, etc... Heath–
I agree with you that there can be no “perfect” weight, etc… I’m no expert on the specifics, but I would have to think that some of that could be taken into account. The Devil, of course, would be in the details.

Ben–
I think that the idea is indeed that, by incentivizing exercise, not smoking, etc…, the total amount of health care costs will decrease. Safeway has dramatically slashed their costs not by refusing to insure some of their employees (at least as far as I could tell from the editorial), but by giving big discounts to those who are in the best shape. This encourages more people toward better health, and that decreases the overall health care costs of the company. The insurance company can then charge lower premiums because it is paying out for fewer health expenses.

I think this point is important to the overall argument of an incentive-based health care policy. I’m not talking about limiting health insurance any more than it is now, but I am talking about making it possible to reduce your payments (because of reduced overhead costs to the company) through a better lifestyle, just as you can reduce your auto payments through better driving. In this case, I think incentives will work far better than nationalization.

Also, I am very uncomfortable with the idea of taxing unhealthy foods for one simple reason: taxes don’t go away. If doughnuts, for example, become so heavily taxed that people no longer want to buy them, then there will be a net decrease in doughnut sales. If this happens, then that tax revenue will dry up, leaving x government program without the funds it has been depending on.

When this happens, the government typically doesn’t close shop on the program — instead, the government simply looks for another target to tax. Perhaps this time, Ben, the government will turn their eye toward a diploma tax. So, what started out as a tax for the really unhealthy foods (which we didn’t really care about, because we didn’t eat too many of them anyway) turned into a tax on the things we really loved.

I just don’t think that the United States federal government is the best place to try to micro-manage what you eat, how much you exercise, etc…

]]> Comment on Incentivize, Don’t Nationalize by Ben http://baldbears.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/incentivize-dont-nationalize/#comment-2151 Ben Fri, 12 Jun 2009 22:12:41 +0000 http://baldbears.wordpress.com/?p=829#comment-2151 Can you add ReCaptcha to the comments? Can you add ReCaptcha to the comments?

]]> Comment on Incentivize, Don’t Nationalize by Ben http://baldbears.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/incentivize-dont-nationalize/#comment-2150 Ben Fri, 12 Jun 2009 22:11:35 +0000 http://baldbears.wordpress.com/?p=829#comment-2150 I get the idea of tracking insurance premiums to risky behaviors. One worry I have, though, it what happens to people who make poor choices? With auto insurance, the worst thing that can happen is one cannot get a car. While that is bad, it is not nearly as bad as being unable to get any significant healthcare. Unless we are willing to deny someone needed treatment, the public is probably going to have to pick up the tab at some point. Is the idea that we increase premiums for less healthy habits to encourage healthier habits (and thus people) and then figure the public will pay for less? Also, if we want to hold people responsible for their health insurance costs, what about people who have greater risk factors that are not due to their behavior? Being overweight or having higher risk for cancer are not always connected to one's choices. Seems like it would be tricky to distinguish between someone who is directly responsible for their health woes and those who are not. But then again, maybe this is just about incentives and minimizing the unhealthy people so the government does not have to pay for as many. Maybe we should discourage eating unhealthy foods by taxing them more. If we want to permit companies to charge more for health insurance based on behavior, should the government (that ultimately has to incur some costs for unhealthy behaviors) be able to tax more based on behavior? I get the idea of tracking insurance premiums to risky behaviors. One worry I have, though, it what happens to people who make poor choices? With auto insurance, the worst thing that can happen is one cannot get a car. While that is bad, it is not nearly as bad as being unable to get any significant healthcare. Unless we are willing to deny someone needed treatment, the public is probably going to have to pick up the tab at some point. Is the idea that we increase premiums for less healthy habits to encourage healthier habits (and thus people) and then figure the public will pay for less?

Also, if we want to hold people responsible for their health insurance costs, what about people who have greater risk factors that are not due to their behavior? Being overweight or having higher risk for cancer are not always connected to one’s choices. Seems like it would be tricky to distinguish between someone who is directly responsible for their health woes and those who are not. But then again, maybe this is just about incentives and minimizing the unhealthy people so the government does not have to pay for as many.

Maybe we should discourage eating unhealthy foods by taxing them more. If we want to permit companies to charge more for health insurance based on behavior, should the government (that ultimately has to incur some costs for unhealthy behaviors) be able to tax more based on behavior?

]]> Comment on Incentivize, Don’t Nationalize by Heath http://baldbears.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/incentivize-dont-nationalize/#comment-2149 Heath Fri, 12 Jun 2009 21:50:16 +0000 http://baldbears.wordpress.com/?p=829#comment-2149 Not really disagreeing, but I hate references to "healthy weight." Different body types and builds point to different weights that would be "healthy", but usually the health industry doesn't differentiate - it's all based on what someone of a particular age, gender, and height should weigh. If I was down to what would be considered a "healthy weight", I'd have no depth whatsoever but still be nearly as physically wide as I am. It's hard to change bone structure and positioning. I do agree with providing an incentive to live healthier though. Of course, active individuals tend to have a higher risk of impact injuries (turned ankles, broken bones, tendonitis...). Though, those ARE more short-term issues than heart disease, diabetes, morbid obeseness, etc, which would cost less over the long-term. Not really disagreeing, but I hate references to “healthy weight.” Different body types and builds point to different weights that would be “healthy”, but usually the health industry doesn’t differentiate – it’s all based on what someone of a particular age, gender, and height should weigh. If I was down to what would be considered a “healthy weight”, I’d have no depth whatsoever but still be nearly as physically wide as I am. It’s hard to change bone structure and positioning.
I do agree with providing an incentive to live healthier though. Of course, active individuals tend to have a higher risk of impact injuries (turned ankles, broken bones, tendonitis…). Though, those ARE more short-term issues than heart disease, diabetes, morbid obeseness, etc, which would cost less over the long-term.

]]> Comment on Ben Nelson and Judge Sotomayor by Judicial Background and Blindness « Of Bald Men and Bears http://baldbears.wordpress.com/2009/05/28/ben-nelson-and-judge-sotomayor/#comment-2145 Judicial Background and Blindness « Of Bald Men and Bears Sat, 30 May 2009 14:15:31 +0000 http://baldbears.wordpress.com/?p=707#comment-2145 [...] Background and Blindness My good friend Jake, in response to my earlier post on the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, wrote an insightful comment, arguing [...] [...] Background and Blindness My good friend Jake, in response to my earlier post on the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, wrote an insightful comment, arguing [...]

]]> Comment on Alcohol and Isaiah by Andrew http://baldbears.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/alcohol-and-isaiah/#comment-2144 Andrew Fri, 29 May 2009 13:10:33 +0000 http://baldbears.wordpress.com/?p=723#comment-2144 Good thoughts. I still think Derek's writing has never surpassed that of his first album. We'll see how his new swear controversy album stacks up. Good thoughts. I still think Derek’s writing has never surpassed that of his first album. We’ll see how his new swear controversy album stacks up.

]]>