Health Care is a Moral Issue
Glenn Loury is the Merton P. Stoltz Professor of the Social Sciences and Professor of Economics at Brown University. He is one of the nation's foremost black intellectuals, having held positions at Northwestern University, the University of Michigan, Harvard University, and Boston University.
Loury's sometimes controversial dissection of racial disparities, systemic racism, and economic justice have often landed his views at the center of attention. Early in his professorial career, Loury made his mark as a distinguished academic economist with specific focus on the fields of welfare economics, industrial organization, natural resource economics, and the economics of income distribution. Once earmarked as the leading candidate for the position of under secretary of education in the Reagan administration before withdrawing his name from consideration, Loury also gained notoriety as a controversial social critic with right-wing perspectives that led to his designation as "one of the black darlings of the neoconservative intelligentsia" by Africana.com.
In the 1980s and 1990s, Loury became known for his abrasive critique of affirmative action and his propensity to blame racial inequality on the dysfunction and corruption within the black community, as opposed to the racist attitudes that some argued gave rise to this scenario.
In the late 1990s, however, Loury divulged a much-publicized split with the right, revising former viewpoints and attacking former colleagues. This break was formally ushered in with the release of his new book, The Anatomy of Racial Inequality, in February of 2002.
Question: How important is it that Obama wins on healthcare?
Glenn Loury: The president of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, elected comfortably, in his first year with a very ambitious agenda, inheriting a economic crisis, passing massive fiscal legislation in this stimulus package, which has huge implications down the road; budgetary, tax wise, and so forth and so on; and having at the top of his agenda, reforming healthcare, needs to win this one.
He wins this one, he gets this done, he is a long way toward a successful first term.
He's a long way toward minimizing whatever setbacks the Democrats might have in the 2010 mid-term elections.
And he's up there with LBJ and FDR in terms of solidifying the 20th, 21st, century American Welfare State. This is major. Healthcare is major.
So the politics of this, as the right-wing understands very, very well, is tremendously profound.
I see the policy issues, I see the politics, but I also see the moral issue. Because this really is about who we are as a people here. And this healthcare debate--now everybody knows the history; Clintons' tried; they failed early in their administration. And they suffered serious setbacks in the '94 elections and the rest is history. Obama is teetering here. He tries, he fails; then we've got two failures, right, to try to do this.
And the fact that we are the only advanced industrial democracy where people can get sick and languish because they can't afford care. Or where people are blocked in access to the system because they don't have access to insurance, which is only available through certain narrow portals and under certain very restricted conditions. The fact that we're the only society that hasn't embraced this idea, that no one should go without access to these services, regardless of their financial condition, and no one should be saddled with a lifetime of debt because they have the misfortune of falling ill; that's a major moral issue.
So I see it as a moment of big moral challenge for the country. Those are the broad outlines that I see.
Question: What do you think of the administration’s plan?
Glenn Loury: I want the president to succeed here and I want the country to move in this direction. There's a lot to pick over and argue about on the policy front.
I get the public option, because it's the stalking horse -- I know I'm not supposed to say this, I know that this is not the line -- it's the camel's nose under the tent for what I think is the correct solution to this problem, which is the so-called single payer system. Which is Medicare for all, which is the government stands behind, collects the taxes to pay for, regulates the provision of, but stands behind the provision of these services to everybody.
That's not to stop somebody who has a lot of money from buying something extra. That's to say, here's the government and we're providing this to everybody.
Now people have said that they can't get that done, politically, here in the United States, and I see that very clearly. The vitriolic and hysterical attacks against the president's efforts to reform healthcare, labeling them socialism, talking with them in terms of fascist and government profound government intrusion into the lives of people.
When in fact, what it is what every other advanced, wealthy, democratic, industrialized country has done, and nothing more, shows me that to come straight out for the single payer system would probably meet with political failure. Therefore, we have had to invent this end run around the political realities. And as I understand the public option, and I know there'd be a lot of debate about this, that's the main role of it.
They say compete with insurance companies. I think what it actually means is compel or coerce, or drive insurance companies into a mode of behavior. We're not going to get rid of the insurance middleman, here, with a single payer system, but we're going to create a public presence in the insurance industry, powerful enough to drive the direction of the industry in the way that we, together with regulation, want it to go. And so therein lies the big policy debate.
What I think about that is I wish that we had the capacity to go directly at the single payer system. I think what we're doing is messy; so messy that the president can't explain it. And he's pretty good at explaining stuff. And people still don't really get what's going on because it's mess
There's a lot of demagogic rhetoric, and not only on the right. There's some of this rhetoric about the insurance companies that I hear coming, for example, from the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, I wish would be reconsidered. I say this as a guy who, I think of myself as on the left.
But I think that if you have a system where you say you're selling insurance to people, it's very natural that the company selling the insurance are going to try to vet claims and minimize the amount of payments that they have to make.
If you have a system that says everybody who needs healthcare gets it and we're going to make sure that it gets paid for by raising your taxes and providing the requirements on individuals where they have the ability to pay, such as we determine as appropriate, then the insurance issue doesn't come up.
So what am I trying to say about the insurance companies? I think the talk about insurance company profit and insurance company venality, as the source of this problem, is a by-product of our unwillingness to confront head-on, the sort of deeper, moral issue, which is that we should provide the services, in terms of healthcare, to the people who need them, more or less, regardless of their ability to pay. And it's divisive. It's divisive, political rhetoric.
I don't necessarily buy all these claims that the president and other people are making about the savings, magically, that are going to come from preventive care and all of that. Again, if one reads the studies and not the hype, my understanding of it -- I don't claim to be an expert, but I'm an intelligent consumer of the literature -- is that oftentimes preventive screening ends up costing more because you have to screen the universal population. It's good health policy, because screening allows you to do preventable interventions for the people who have a malady, but if one in ten women have breast cancer and you do the tests for everybody, that's going to be ten times for everyone that you catch, et cetera, et cetera.
The arithmetic need not work out to cost savings, which is not an argument for not testing everybody, it's just an argument that the imagined cost-savings may not materialize, and so on and so forth.
So it's the right thing for us to do. It's a complex policy move, it's hugely, politically important for President Obama, and the opposition recognizes that. There is a lot of demagoguery and hype on all sides.
The cost implications of what we're planning to do are substantial and I think, have probably been underestimated by the proponents. It's not a reason for us not doing it, but it is a reason to look straight into the eye of what it is that we undertake here, to make sure that we provide properly for paying for it, and so on.
Recorded on: August 18, 2009
If Obama wins this battle, he’d be up there with F.D.R. and L.B.J. in terms of solidifying the 21st century American welfare state, says Brown economics professor Glenn Loury.
To create wiser adults, add empathy to the school curriculum.
- Stories are at the heart of learning, writes Cleary Vaughan-Lee, Executive Director for the Global Oneness Project. They have always challenged us to think beyond ourselves, expanding our experience and revealing deep truths.
- Vaughan-Lee explains 6 ways that storytelling can foster empathy and deliver powerful learning experiences.
- Global Oneness Project is a free library of stories—containing short documentaries, photo essays, and essays—that each contain a companion lesson plan and learning activities for students so they can expand their experience of the world.
Numerous U.S. Presidents invoked the Insurrection Act to to quell race and labor riots.
- U.S. Presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act on numerous occasions.
- The controversial law gives the President some power to bring in troops to police the American people.
- The Act has been used mainly to restore order following race and labor riots.
It looks like a busy hurricane season ahead. Probably.
- Before the hurricane season even started in 2020, Arthur and Bertha had already blown through, and Cristobal may be brewing right now.
- Weather forecasters see signs of a rough season ahead, with just a couple of reasons why maybe not.
- Where's an El Niño when you need one?
Welcome to Hurricane Season 2020. 2020, of course, scoffs at this calendric event much as it has everything else that's normal — meteorologists have already used up the year's A and B storm names before we even got here. And while early storms don't necessarily mean a bruising season ahead, forecasters expect an active season this year. Maybe storms will blow away the murder hornets and 13-year locusts we had planned.
NOAA expects a busy season
According to NOAA's Climate Prediction Center, an agency of the National Weather Service, there's a 60 percent chance that we're embarking upon a season with more storms than normal. There does, however, remain a 30 percent it'll be normal. Better than usual? Unlikely: Just a 10 percent chance.
Where a normal hurricane season has an average of 12 named storms, 6 of which become hurricanes and 3 of which are major hurricanes, the Climate Prediction Center reckons we're on track for 13 to 29 storms, 6 to 10 of which will become hurricanes, and 3 to 6 of these will be category 3, 4, or 5, packing winds of 111 mph or higher.
What has forecasters concerned are two factors in particular.
This year's El Niño ("Little Boy") looks to be more of a La Niña ("Little Girl"). The two conditions are part of what's called the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle, which describes temperature fluctuations between the ocean and atmosphere in the east-central Equatorial Pacific. With an El Niño, waters in the Pacific are unusually warm, whereas a La Niña means unusually cool waters. NOAA says that an El Niño can suppress hurricane formation in the Atlantic, and this year that mitigating effect is unlikely to be present.
Second, current conditions in the Atlantic and Caribbean suggest a fertile hurricane environment:
- The ocean there is warmer than usual.
- There's reduced vertical wind shear.
- Atlantic tropical trade winds are weak.
- There have been strong West African monsoons this year.
Here's NOAA's video laying out their forecast:
ArsTechnica spoke to hurricane scientist Phil Klotzbach, who agrees generally with NOAA, saying, "All in all, signs are certainly pointing towards an active season." Still, he notes a couple of signals that contradict that worrying outlook.
First off, Klotzbach notes that the surest sign of a rough hurricane season is when its earliest storms form in the deep tropics south of 25°N and east of the Lesser Antilles. "When you get storm formations here prior to June 1, it's typically a harbinger of an extremely active season." Fortunately, this year's hurricanes Arthur and Bertha, as well as the maybe-imminent Cristobal, formed outside this region. So there's that.
Second, Klotzbach notes that the correlation between early storm activity and a season's number of storms and intensities, is actually slightly negative. So while statistical connections aren't strongly predictive, there's at least some reason to think these early storms may augur an easy season ahead.
Image source: NOAA
Batten down the hatches early
If 2020's taught us anything, it's how to juggle multiple crises at once, and layering an active hurricane season on top of SARS-CoV-2 — not to mention everything else — poses a special challenge. Warns Treasury Secretary Wilbur Ross, "As Americans focus their attention on a safe and healthy reopening of our country, it remains critically important that we also remember to make the necessary preparations for the upcoming hurricane season." If, as many medical experts expect, we're forced back into quarantine by additional coronavirus waves, the oceanic waves slamming against our shores will best be met by storm preparations put in place in a less last-minute fashion than usual.
Ross adds, "Just as in years past, NOAA experts will stay ahead of developing hurricanes and tropical storms and provide the forecasts and warnings we depend on to stay safe."
Let's hope this, at least, can be counted on in this crazy year.
Philosophers like to present their works as if everything before it was wrong. Sometimes, they even say they have ended the need for more philosophy. So, what happens when somebody realizes they were mistaken?
Sometimes philosophers are wrong and admitting that you could be wrong is a big part of being a real philosopher. While most philosophers make minor adjustments to their arguments to correct for mistakes, others make large shifts in their thinking. Here, we have four philosophers who went back on what they said earlier in often radical ways.
Got any embarrassing old posts collecting dust on your profile? Facebook wants to help you delete them.
- The feature is called Manage Activity, and it's currently available through mobile and Facebook Lite.
- Manage Activity lets users sort old content by filters like date and posts involving specific people.
- Some companies now use AI-powered background checking services that scrape social media profiles for problematic content.