Comments on: Something you’re not likely to see too often

By: Thomas

Thomas — Sat, 11 Mar 2006 19:10:59 +0000

On one topic (if not on the other): why would we think that high educational expenses on the way to becoming a doctor are a cause of high doctor salaries? Wouldn’t we expect it to run the other way—that people would pay a lot to become a doctor, because it is such a lucrative position? (That’s certainly what we see in my field.)

I don’t think JohnQ’s description of the present state of the insurance market in the US is entirely accurate. HMOs continue to decline in market share, and are being replaced, up and down the ladder, by PPOs, which provide access to care but, unlike an HMO, require the payment of a deductible (typically on a variable scale depending on whether the care in provided within the designated group or without). In a PPO, then, what differentiates the level of care received is, to a degree, knowledge of which doctors/institutional providers are better than others, and pre-existing financial resources. The top 20% (however defined—whether by education, income, wealth, status) likely do better under a PPO than those further down the ladder, not because the PPO provides unlimited care, but because they are more likely to have the knowledge and resources to fully advantage themselves under the plan.

By: Tim Worstall

Tim Worstall — Sat, 11 Mar 2006 06:59:13 +0000

Jared: Part of the inspiration (if I can use such a grand word for a little polemic) was indeed that NYRB review by Krugman. I basically take that piece, mix and match with a new book by Johnny Munkhammar (of Timbro in Sweden) and use JQ to back up some of my points.
John, many thanks for the kind words. Admitting to error, well, when you make as many as I do it seems only fair to ’fess up. “Ooops” is so much shorter (and possibly politer) than 1500 words of stonewalling.
As to why I write for them? I get to write on whatever is buzzing round my bonnet that week, learn a lot in doing whatever research I do do, clear up ideas in my own mind while doing so and in general enjoy myself. When corrected I learn even more. I also cover the beer bill.
There is also the rather grubby point about anybody freelancing. Absolutely the most difficult thing is to get an editor to read that first submission, most especially in paying markets. Nick Schultz was the first editor (well, apart from some very small pieces in the Moscow Tribune and New Times of SLO a decade ago) to be willing to do so and then actually use pieces. I’m extremely grateful to him for doing so.
Slate, Salon? I doubt it somehow but perhaps this could be a CT campaign? Find Tim another freelance outlet?
:-)
As to “hack”, often a word of approval in English English. After a piece appeared in the DT one Observer columnist emailed to say that I was a “proper hack now”: I assume those were words of approval anyway.

By: Amanda

Amanda — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 22:34:08 +0000

It’s not that the slots are hard to fill, it’s that, for some reason known only to squishy center-left editors, they don’t want to put a sound conservative/right-winger/libertarian in.

I’d largely agree, and point to Obsidian Wings as a rare example of a site with strong center/left bloggers and a majority of center/left commenters that does better than most at retaining center/right bloggers. (Commenters are another matter.)

By: Barry

Barry — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 22:21:52 +0000

John Quiggin: “Salon had David Horowitz for a while, until his whining got too unbearable (this was what motivated my comment about these slots being hard to fill).”

John, it’s not that the slots are hard to fill, it’s that, for some reason known only to squishy center-left editors, they don’t want to put a sound conservative/right-winger/libertarian in.
I want to say that it’s like they’re really looking for a column of all fart jokes, because they put nothing but a-holes in there. Horowitz and Hitchens need no introduction, but if Landsburg was the best right-wing economist with a spare couple of hours per month, then that wing of econ has certainly withered.

I wonder if it’s because these editors honestly don’t understand the difference between taking a contrary stand out of principle and reason, and being a puffed up ‘politically incorrect’ jerk, who prides himself on false bravery? I’ve felt that in general; perhaps this is just another manifestation.

By: Jared

Jared — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 22:08:05 +0000

Krugman’s piece in the NYRB last week makes similar points.

By: Ross Smith

Ross Smith — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 21:42:08 +0000

This has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand, but I never fail to get a small (and, I’ll freely admit, entirely unfair) chuckle out of the frequent references to “Blue Cross” (an insurance company, I gather) that always crop up in any discussion of the American medical industry. Here in New Zealand, a blue cross is the standard symbol of the veterinary profession.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 21:38:31 +0000

Salon had David Horowitz for a while, until his whining got too unbearable (this was what motivated my comment about these slots being hard to fill).

Hitchens gets a pretty good run on Slate, as does Stephen Landsburg who’s silly more often than not.

By: Nat Whilk

Nat Whilk — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 21:28:03 +0000

Which left/liberal sites welcome opposition writers?