“Amazing Obama” is a talking doll, whose string you have to pull every so often if you want him to work. Like “Amazing Ally,” another “interactive talking doll,” he can “recognize various objects,” and has “an internal talking mechanism that can store countless phrases.” “Amazing Obama” even has voice recognition technology that allows him to recognize the voice of “Mama Obama.” (Although she frightens him into having a … real accident.) “It’s hard to say where new (and cheaper) technologies will take talking dolls in the future, but wherever they go,” they will come with strings attached and teleprompters, of course.
'Health-Status Insurance: How Markets Can Provide Health Security'
If the state allowed a market in insurance for catastrophic events to develop, we’d all benefit from quality and choice in health care, at reasonable rates. But it won’t. Obama seeks to “limit competition and consumer choice by banning risk-based premiums.” Writing for the Cato Institute, John H. Cochrane explains the ins-and-outs of “health-status insurance”:
“None of us has health insurance, really. If you develop a long-term condition such as heart disease or cancer, and if you then lose your job or are divorced, you can lose your health insurance. You now have a preexisting condition, and insurance will be enormously expensive—if it’s available at all.”
“Free markets can solve this problem, and provide life-long, portable health security, while enhancing consumer choice and competition. “Heath-status insurance” is the key. If you are diagnosed with a long-term, expensive condition, a health-status insurance policy will give you the resources to pay higher medical insurance premiums. Health-status insurance covers the risk of premium reclassification, just as medical insurance covers the risk of medical expenses.
With health-status insurance, you can always obtain medical insurance, no matter how sick you get, with no change in out-of-pocket costs. With health-status insurance, medical insurers would be allowed to charge sick people more than healthy people, and to compete intensely for all customers. People would have complete freedom to change jobs, move, or change medical insurers. Rigorous competition would allow us to obtain better medical care at lower cost.
Most regulations and policy proposals aimed at improving long-term insurance—including those advanced in Barack Obama’s presidential campaign— limit competition and consumer choice by banning risk-based premiums, forcing insurers to take all comers, strengthening employer-based or other forced pooling mechanisms, or introducing national health insurance.
The individual health insurance market is already moving in the direction of health-status insurance. To let health-status insurance emerge fully, we must remove the legal and regulatory pressure to provide employer-based group insurance over individual insurance and remove regulations limiting risk-based pricing and competition among health insurers.”
Read the policy paper.
So far the utilitarian technicalities. On the dynamics of socialized medicine, read “Mephisto’s Medicare: A Parable.”
‘Health-Status Insurance: How Markets Can Provide Health Security’
If the state allowed a market in insurance for catastrophic events to develop, we’d all benefit from quality and choice in health care, at reasonable rates. But it won’t. Obama seeks to “limit competition and consumer choice by banning risk-based premiums.” Writing for the Cato Institute, John H. Cochrane explains the ins-and-outs of “health-status insurance”:
“None of us has health insurance, really. If you develop a long-term condition such as heart disease or cancer, and if you then lose your job or are divorced, you can lose your health insurance. You now have a preexisting condition, and insurance will be enormously expensive—if it’s available at all.”
“Free markets can solve this problem, and provide life-long, portable health security, while enhancing consumer choice and competition. “Heath-status insurance” is the key. If you are diagnosed with a long-term, expensive condition, a health-status insurance policy will give you the resources to pay higher medical insurance premiums. Health-status insurance covers the risk of premium reclassification, just as medical insurance covers the risk of medical expenses.
With health-status insurance, you can always obtain medical insurance, no matter how sick you get, with no change in out-of-pocket costs. With health-status insurance, medical insurers would be allowed to charge sick people more than healthy people, and to compete intensely for all customers. People would have complete freedom to change jobs, move, or change medical insurers. Rigorous competition would allow us to obtain better medical care at lower cost.
Most regulations and policy proposals aimed at improving long-term insurance—including those advanced in Barack Obama’s presidential campaign— limit competition and consumer choice by banning risk-based premiums, forcing insurers to take all comers, strengthening employer-based or other forced pooling mechanisms, or introducing national health insurance.
The individual health insurance market is already moving in the direction of health-status insurance. To let health-status insurance emerge fully, we must remove the legal and regulatory pressure to provide employer-based group insurance over individual insurance and remove regulations limiting risk-based pricing and competition among health insurers.”
Read the policy paper.
So far the utilitarian technicalities. On the dynamics of socialized medicine, read “Mephisto’s Medicare: A Parable.”
Riz Khan Interviews Amos Oz On Al Jazeera
Intellectualism, Israel, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Journalism, Literature
And an ‘A’ For Al-Jazeera Again.
Two exceptionally bright men, Riz Khan and Amos Oz, talk. If I’m stating the obvious, it’s because it’s rare to see an example of such objective, intelligent journalism in the American news media.
I’m an admirer of Oz’s work. His early books I devoured back in Israel, in Hebrew, naturally. (The man was extremely handsome). Oz is an exceptional writer; his books translate well too. I recommend them.
I’ve always thought of Oz as a dove–a man of the Left. But this is what the old Left used to be: reasonable, patriotic, fair (and manly).
Oz’s use of the English language—a second language—is charming, precise, and colorful. He exemplifies the older Israeli intelligentsia.
It’s a shame I can’t get Al Jazeera. American “news” channels are an example of cretinism (and the “V” factor) in action.
Part I:
Part II: