My Photo

« Putting the Big in Small | Main | Temper, Temper »

October 09, 2008

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515c2369e20105356da3bc970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Reverse the Curse:

Comments

Rolla, Missouri is my home town. It's gratifying to see that one of those fellows is from there. (My mother has already told me that she's seen "Rednecks for Obama" bumper stickers at the grocery store.) Rolla has a long political history with the word "redneck," ever since local favorite son Mel Carnahan was derided as "just a redneck from Rolla" before getting elected governor.

I forget which MSNBC show I saw him on last night. Anyhow, it was the first time I had ever heard North Carolina Gov. Mike Easley and he was quite articulate.

Easley said he believes we will see a reverse Bradley effect with Obama -- that many redneck types in his state aren't openly saying they will vote for Obama but will pull the lever once they get in the voting booth.

Easley said something to the effect that these guys love their pickups and guns but they love their jobs even more.

North Carolina hasn't gone Democrat since Carter.

Inevitably: I linked to the Packer piece a couple of days ago.

:-)

"...holding the banner: 'Rednecks for Obama.'"

Publius had an entire post consisting of a photograph of some folks holding up their sign at the Democratic National Convention.

Sorry about that Eric -- I'm very tired. Hadn't read the whole post or I would have seen that you mentioned Easley.

The antedote he told about his barber was colorful and telling.

bedtime: That was the Rachel Maddow show, and I linked to his commentary in the post.

BTFB: Didn't see your response. Oops. OK. We've sorted that out ;)

Easley is leaving office under term limits. The race is between Beverly Perdue, Democrat, and Republican Pat McCrory.

Perdue has been steadily ahead until the last week, but the latest poll puts her behind.

I'm cautiously optimistic that Obama will win NC, and also that Kay Hagen will knock off Elizabeth Dole.

Correct spelling should have been "anecdote."

Haven't seen anything on these pages but it was revolting yesterday to hear on MSNBC and elsewhere that Palin is appealing to the lowest common denominator at her rallies -- that folks are yelling "kill him" (referring to Obama).

To say this is serious stuff would be an understatement.

Shocking that the media isn't reporting on this. I guess it doesn't play into the hockey mom angles they'd rather report regarding Palin, who looks pretty ugly on this week's cover of Newsweek -- the bloom sure is off that rose.

North Carolina hasn't gone Democratic since Carter.

Fixed; you're welcome.

"Shocking that the media isn't reporting on this."

Wtf are you talking about? It's been all over every major publication: the NY Times, WaPo, etc., as well as the nightly network news.

It might really help to check before making baseless and false claims like this.

Not to mention that this "...it was revolting yesterday to hear on MSNBC and elsewhere" can't possibly be reconciled with "[s]hocking that the media isn't reporting on this."

I understand you're tired and stressed, and sympathies, but this makes no sense.

Wtf are you talking about? It's been all over every major publication: the NY Times, WaPo, etc., as well as the nightly network news.

I'm guessing that btfb meant that the cable news channels mentioned it but gave the story a lot less air time than he thinks it deserves. As a newcomer to the political blog world, he may not have your experience with media criticism.

Cable "news" rots the mind. People shouldn't listen to it.

Read.

Or if you have to watch tv, watch the PBS Newshour and/or BBC World News. Or at least the network evening news.

Cable "news" just makes people stupid.

I linked to this in an earlier thread, as well, I think.

Elsewhere, apparently in Kentucky they think New Yorkers speak with New Jersey accents.

I guess Chuck Schumer won't be representing Kentucky in the Senate, after all.

Thanks for the Hate Machine post, Eric. I seem to be a day or two behind on everything.

Remember that guy McCain told "you may not have heard" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

Reminds me of Cleavon Little in Blazing Saddles: "I'm getting to be an underground success!"

Eric,

I'm a little bit disappointed that you put this much effort into bringing up the Bradley effect without so much as mentioning the work that Nate Silver at 538 has put into looking for it.

See my comment here in a prior thread for links to some of Nate's analysis.

TLTIA: The omission was purely the result of ignorance. I just didn't know about Silver's work, or your links.

Despite my efforts, I'm still not aware of all Internet traditions.

"Despite my efforts, I'm still not aware of all Internet traditions."

By law, you're required to read all comments here, and my blog, before posting.

It's a well-known internet tradition.

I actually considered pointing out Nate Silver's posts, as well, but figured I'd harassed you enough so far.

Despite my efforts, I'm still not aware of all Internet traditions.

lolz.

ABC's network news just reported that the Obama campaign is spending tens of millions of dollars buying half-hour blocks of tv ad time the week before the election.

Gary: I understand you're tired and stressed, and sympathies, but this makes no sense.

Cut him (bedtimeforbonzo) some slack dude. You’re the most widely read, up to the minute person I ever met. (Online or off.) You’re a walking encyclopedia, a news feed, an English teacher, and a grammar coach - all rolled into one. ;)

You have my greatest respect for all that – but it’s tough sometimes for us mere mortals to keep up!

"You have my greatest respect for all that – but it’s tough sometimes for us mere mortals to keep up!"

We have mercifully decided to let btfb live.

I'm also a dessert topping.


ABC's network news just reported that the Obama campaign is spending tens of millions of dollars buying half-hour blocks of tv ad time the week before the election.

Does this mean it will be Obama's fault when the TV networks collapse along with the rest of the economy after Nov 4th? Who will be left that has any money to advertise?

"“I don’t know anyone who’s for Obama,” said Jennice, a Democrat who supported Hillary Clinton and who won’t vote in November."

groan.

"Who will be left that has any money to advertise?"

The drug companies. And Ronco.

Is there also a (admittedly, weaker) contra-Bradley effect? That is, ordinarily center-right and right voters who

(a) are opposed to Obama on several key issues but

(b) are looking for an excuse to vote for an African-American candidate because

(c) they grew up in America back when white media dudes didn't pretend that we were all swell and post-racial (i.e., prior to 2008) and

(d) strongly suspect that we ain't quite as post-racial as us white folks seem to believe, plus

(e) don't want to have to tell their kids that, hey, an eminently qualified Black candidate came along but I didn't vote for him because, on balance, I agreed slightly more with the other, plus-plus

(f) will get no end of crap from their friends if they don't vote for a guy who is clearly more qualified to be President than any candidate on any major party since at least 1992 ('tho Lugar didn't get the nomination), while, with McCain, we're one photon away from melanoma.

Or is it just me?

I actually considered pointing out Nate Silver's posts, as well, but figured I'd harassed you enough so far.

Gary, you know I welcome the editor/fact checker/encyclopedia. It's the lasers I can live without.

Von: I think you're right. Thought about that after I posted this. Thanks for adding.

Obama spent his 20's and 30's trying to get in touch with "the black half" of himself (according to his memoir, "Dreams from my Father." Hopefully he has spent a good part of the last 10 getting in touch with his white half. Certainly his mother and the grandparents who raised him had to struggle. Surely he is intimate with this fact.

Anyway, his best moment recently was his speech in the Senate right before passage of the financial bailout package. He spoke in terms of "all" Americans. It brought a tear to my eyes.

f) will get no end of crap from their friends if they don't vote for a guy who is clearly more qualified to be President than any candidate on any major party since at least 1992 ('tho Lugar didn't get the nomination), while, with McCain, we're one photon away from melanoma.

(g) will have to look for friends among the yahoos, since civilized grown-ups will shun them if McCain's straight-up appeal to yahoos prevails.

I can live with McCain smearing Obama. I can live with McCain winning the election. But if McCain wins by smearing Obama, I foresee massive violations of the posting rules -- in real life, not just on ObWi.

--TP


"We have mercifully decided to let btfb live."

Thanks, Gary.

And thanks, OCSteve. It is easy to feel inferior here when you're not zoned in on the news and giving it just a glance. Now I know how a low-information voter feels.

Please stop reading George Packer. He is always wrong. He was the one that said that Obama had to change his Iraq policy which sent the press into a tizzy trying to identify every little word that Obama said as evidence of him flip-flopping.

The only people getting all worked up about race right now are all the white professionals who keep trying to pump it into the public consciousness. George Packer is one of those people.

This whole thing reminds me of the Dem Convention where all of the journalists went out in active pursuit for disaffected Clinton supporters so that they could do their "Dems Divided" story that they so wanted. This is the same anecdotal tripe.

Hey, I am a NYC Ivy League dude and I went out to the "heartland" talked to some "working class whites" and I look what I found, there are some that are talking about it. Look, if you ask anyone whether you know people talking about Obama and race, everyone would say yes.

Finally, if Obama was tanking among this group, then explain the polls.

Look, just so people need some evidence, Obama has been gaining massive ground among white men. It looks like the VP debate convinced some white women about Palin, but white men are not convinced and white men do not want McCain to die and be left with President Palin. It's a joke. Check the chart, they would rather have the black guy than Palin. Enough said. So stop it with this stupidity. If McCain picked Romney, maybe Obama would have a working class white problem, but since he picked this idiotic woman that no one can take seriously, he left an opening and Obama is taking it.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/moresensitivewhitewomen.php

I really hate people that prefer the anecdote over actual data. Talk about ignorance.

"Please stop reading George Packer. He is always wrong."

If one doesn't read him, one couldn't possibly know that.

As it happens, I read him, and I know perfectly well that isn't true.

"So stop it with this stupidity."

What stupidity, precisely, should we stop? Can you quote the stupidity, please?

"I really hate people that prefer the anecdote over actual data."

Can you quote whom you are referring to, please?

The drug companies. And Ronco.

When I was a kid, my buddies and I speculated that Popeil had stolen his surname from a pimp in Marseille.

(f) will get no end of crap from their friends if they don't vote for a guy who is clearly more qualified to be President than any candidate on any major party since at least 1992

As well they ought.

'tho Lugar didn't get the nomination

Sadly, not mavericky enough. More's the pity.

Thanks -


Out here in my white collar white middle to wealthy neighborhood he's getting support from another demographic: Republicans. They don't have signs or bumper stickers or talk about it except to selected friends, but the support is there.

this is a little tangential, but i think the views of the mobs at palin-mccain campaigns make me feel pessimistic about a rednecks for obama trend:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjxzmaXAg9E

the ignorance of some people is frightening.


(f) will get no end of crap from their friends if they don't vote for a guy who is clearly more qualified to be President than any candidate on any major party since at least 1992 ('tho Lugar didn't get the nomination), while, with McCain, we're one photon away from melanoma.

Or is it just me?

von,

Reading between the lines of your point by point exposition, this scans to me like something less complicated may be going on with these hypothetical "Lugar voters" - namely that they are patriotic Americans who are trying to do the right thing by their country at a time when the quality of our leadership for the next several years is going to matter a great deal.

von, I expect that the number of voters who fall into that category is microscopic.

White guilt overcoming policy differences? Really? In this country where voting is done in secret?

Hell, I disagree with the MUP (magical unity pony, per Balloon Juice) on a number of important issues, like trade and FISA. But I'm voting for him because (a) I support his policies on the war, health care and taxes, (b) I support his thoughtful technocratic style; and (c) the other guy (not to mention his VP) could well be the ruination of the American Dream.

ymmd.

My sister, who lives in mostly-rural northeast Ohio, has been buying into a lot of the tripe that's been out there about Obama, referring to him as "Barack Hussein Terrorist-Cell Obama," sending me emails of dogs peeing on Obama signs, etc.

Last night I was on the phone with her. Her son, my 19-year-old nephew, has to have serious back surgery in two weeks. He's not currently insured, and unless we can pull some strings, they're going to be on the hook for about $25,000 in surgery costs, including $4,000 that they have to produce by Monday.

At one point in the conversation, I said, "Denise, you know, this is why you need to vote for Obama."

She replied, "I know. I think I probably will."

Success! :)

Debrazza, race still plays a huge, and unfortunate, role in society. I disagree with Ta-Nesihi Coates on any number of things, but his recent posting on race have been very good. Take a look at them. (My ultimate take is slightly different; more in line with the notion of a perpetratorless crime that proved so fascinating the 50s existentialists, particularly Camus and Bowles.) Interracial couples still get looks and double-takes, even in so-called liberal metropolii. Ask one.

Reading between the lines of your point by point exposition, this scans to me like something less complicated may be going on with these hypothetical "Lugar voters" - namely that they are patriotic Americans who are trying to do the right thing by their country at a time when the quality of our leadership for the next several years is going to matter a great deal.

Not exactly. I continue to think that either McCain or Obama would "do the right thing by their country". On the issues, I would prefer a McCain administration. And I am very uncomfortable with turning both Congress and the White House over the Democrats: US government works best when it's divided (see, 1992-1994; 2000-2004/6).

White guilt overcoming policy differences? Really? In this country where voting is done in secret?

Guilt isn't also hidden? Most white folks refuse to acknowledge that they are motivated at all by race. More frequently they say: I vote on the issues, I don't see color, etc.

Allow me to be one to stand athwart the Obama movement and call "bullshit" and y'all (and me as well). Race is playing a significant role in generating buzz for Obama, and also, to some extent (greater? lesser? who knows?), fostering detractors and holdbacks. Obama is a transformational candidate, and part of reason why he is transformational is the fact that he's a black man in a country that has been discriminating against black men for centuries.

Race is definitely playing a role for me. It would be very easy for me to vote against a faceless D. Really. I like McCain. I've been a supporter of McCain since '00. I've donated to him. Just as Obama supporters do with their candidate, I find it too easy to excuse McCain's foibles. But I am finding it very difficult to vote against the "First Black President". I've asked myself more than once, and once outloud in a bar: How can I f-cking do that?

Guilt is not the best way to make a decision. And if race still plays a factor in your thinking, as it does in mine, it's proof that you're not yet at the promise land. It's f-cking demeaning to Obama to consider voting for him based on race. Among other things, who should be judged on his own merit. I should be (and am) ashamed. But I doubt that folks can avoid letting race affect their thinking this time 'round, and I distrust folks who are confident that they've overcome 500 years of cultural baggage through sheer force of their good intentions (been there, done that). I'm not going to avoid examining all of my motivations. White guilt is definitely one of them.

Race is definitely playing a role for me.

FWIW, it isn't for me. Yes, I'm psyched that he's a racially transformative candidate, of course... but I genuinely prefer his politics and policies to just about anyone who was in this race. [At least, anyone who could've got elected.] Short of Russ Feingold running, Obama's my man, skin color be damned.

I am one of those "Rednecks 4 Obama" and I live about 30 miles from Tony. The good thing about the "R4O" thing is that it allows us to get above the racial stuff and actually talk about the policy differnces. You know, "You're a redneck and you're going to vote for that guy? Why?" and when one explains it, they actually listen.

I went canvassing the other day and only found one die hard McCain fan. There were a # of people who weren't going to vote because they "hate" them both, 3 pro-Obama people, several "leaning" Obama, and the rest were "undecideds". While race was an obvious factor for several (even if they wouldn't admit it) I was still able to talk policy in a respectful way with all of them.

I like to think that because I am a redneck who looks beyond race, it will make it more comfortable for them to do so too.

Here's hoping...

Race is definitely playing a role for me. It would be very easy for me to vote against a faceless D. Really. I like McCain. I've been a supporter of McCain since '00. I've donated to him. Just as Obama supporters do with their candidate, I find it too easy to excuse McCain's foibles. But I am finding it very difficult to vote against the "First Black President". I've asked myself more than once, and once outloud in a bar: How can I f-cking do that?

I wasn't old enough to vote in the first election when Margaret Thatcher was running as leader of the Conservative Party, but I would have voted against her (well, her party: I didn't live in her constituency) without hesitation, even though the first woman Prime Minister of the UK was a historic first.

Because Margaret Thatcher's policies were and are absolutely antithetical to my beliefs.

Now, you want a President who will support torture, defund health care, and continue all of Bush's absolutely disastrous policies - you want 4 to 8 years more of McSame. So - I say with all honesty: you really have to vote for McCain, not because you're voting against "the first Black President" but because it's your duty in a democracy to vote for the leader whose policies you support, and if you honestly believe Bush did a good job, it's your duty as a voter to vote for the President you know will continue to run the country in the same way as Bush did.

US government works best when it's divided (see, 1992-1994; 2000-2004/6).

You think the government worked well from 2000-2004???!!! Just about every single abuse and abomination that traces its roots to the PATRIOT Act and the prosecution of the War on Terror, not to mention all of the administration's snafus concerning Iraq, can be traced to that period. As can the causes of a lot of the financial crisis befalling us now. If you consider that "working well" . . .

Okay, my last comment was sarcastic. Partly because it hurts to say to anyone "you should vote McCain", given what a disaster it will be for the world if he loses by a narrow enough margin to get in.

It's a privilege to be able to vote for the first Black candidate for President, or for the first woman Prime Minister, or for the first openly-gay MP. A privilege and a joy.

It's a privilege and a joy that a responsible voter in a democracy has to renounce if that candidate is running under a set of unacceptable policies. Von finds Obama's policies unacceptable and wants 8 more years of Bushlike government: he should do his democratic duty and vote for the candidate he honestly feels will be the better President.

The government wasn't divided then, Phil. Neither in 1992-94; that was the Democratic unification that disintegrated in the Republican Revolution of 1994.

I'm not sure being motivated by white guilt is necessarily a bad thing. Here's what current pop psychology (cognitive/mindfulness-based etc.) argues: emotions, including guilt, are valuable because they prompt us to take action more swiftly or enthusiastically than we might otherwise have done. While emotions aren't the same as cognitive reasoning and shouldn't be confused with it (this is what I take von to mean by "guilt is not the best way to make a decision"), they can and should prompt us to examine aspects of a situation we might otherwise have ignored or downplayed. What guilt prompts us to notice, says current pop psychology, is that our moral values may be being violated.

Which, hello, they ARE, assuming we're anti-racist and are living in the U.S. (none of us reaches the promised land until all of us reach the promised land). My own situation happens to be easier than von's because pretty much any of the Democratic nominees could have had my vote; but there's no question that the anti-racist aspect of supporting Obama's candidacy is a big fat bonus, puts icing on my cupcake, makes me work harder than I might otherwise have done, etc. For someone who sounds genuinely torn (see (f) above), I don't have a moral problem with them letting that icing tip the scales.

For someone who sounds genuinely torn (see (f) above), I don't have a moral problem with them letting that icing tip the scales.

I dunno: I think part of von's problem is that McCain may well not live to the 2012 election, and from von's POV, I should think Palin is an even better choice as President.

Quite possibly McCain missed a trick: I'm fairly sure he planned to have a black male Vice President if Clinton won the nomination, and if he had, Von needn't have had any qualms about voting for his preferred candidate.

Jes -- please stop imputing motives to other people, especially when they're already in this thread and perfectly capable of explaining themselves.

von: It's f-cking demeaning to Obama to consider voting for him based on race.

Which race? Obama is "white" every bit as much as he is "black". Are we back to the one-drop-of-blood rule, now?

I know everybody in the world refers to Obama as black -- he's done it himself. And I know people can say they don't just go by genetics: Obama is black because he "identifies" as black. He married a black woman, for instance. He attended a "black church". Fine. But he also attended (and excelled at) Harvard Law School, a bastion of the white establishment if ever there was one. Of the four people on the presidential tickets, Obama has the closest thing to an Ozzie-and-Harriett family you can find outside a 1950s sitcom. Barack Obama is white. As a white guy myself, I take pride in that.

So von need not struggle with his conscience. He can vote for the stupider, meaner, less honorable of the two white men running for president without worrying about racial guilt. Whether he himself will regret his preference for the wrinkly old white guy's "policies" (he will, eventually) is a subject for another day.

--TP

Funny, I got a feelin' the Bradley Effect 3.5 is the case...this year it's simply more shameful to be a Republican than it is to be a Racist...

Anarch, absolutely. In fact, the polls of seen indicate that the vast majority of McCain supporters are not voting against Obama because he is black: they wouldn't vote for any D. But my point is: whether or not race motivates you to vote for or against a candidate, it's playing a role -- with you, with me, with everyone.

Jes, I am not of fan of Palin or Cheney. Recall that I opposed Bush in '00 (in the primaries), opposed Bush in '04 (in the general), and have never been a part of the religious right. Most of the Republicans of my ilk were run out with Rockefeller, and those that remained post-Rocky have been dropping one by one.

Tony P.

Which race? Obama is "white" every bit as much as he is "black". Are we back to the one-drop-of-blood rule, now?

Tony P., do you live in the same United States where I live? Because whatever high-minded principles you and I may hold, the governing principle in US society remains one drop of blood. Pretending that doesn't exist doesn't make it go away.

For the record, I thought that Jes and Tony P were both a bit unfair to Von for the reasons he suggests.

Because whatever high-minded principles you and I may hold, the governing principle in US society remains one drop of blood.

It seems to me to be more a case of "looking black". Obama would have a harder time catching a cab in New York than a similarly dressed white man; he would be "treated as black" in other settings. There are several instances where an individual was able to "pass" when their nearest kin would not have been able to.

von, we do live in the same US, and I am indeed aware of "the governing principle" of how race is perceived here. I am not denying reality; I want to change it. I bet you do, too. The reality in question is the perception of race. As has been said of the Copernican revolution, "Nothing had changed, yet everything had changed". The physical universe is what it is. Our mental universe is rather more malleable. If someday Americans go by a one-drop-of-WHITE-blood rule, it won't be due to a change in how biology works. I hardly wish to shift to that paradigm, but I do want to tear down the current one.

And (pace Eric) I was not intending to be "a bit unfair" to you. Perhaps it seemed that way because I mistakenly put quotes around the word "policies" rather than italicizing it for emphasis. McCain does have policy differences with Obama, and I still predict you would find yourself disliking the consequences of McCain's policies if they were actually implemented, but I certainly did not mean to imply that your preference for McCain's policies is driven by unbecoming motives.

--TP

"Not exactly. I continue to think that either McCain or Obama would 'do the right thing by their country'"

Von, do you think McCain is doing "the right thing by their country" with the kind of campaign he's been running?

If so, we probably have little to talk about.

If not, then why would you think he'd change once elected?

And on what would you, or do you, base a belief that McCain has good judgment in any way on policy? Any policy? Which policies, exactly?

This is a serious question: I'd really like to know the basis for any such belief you might have, as I have absolutely no idea what the evidence for such a notion might be.

Which policies, exactly?

Offered sincerely, I answer sincerely. Here are three policies:

1. McCain has had a good record on free trade. Obama has no record on free trade, save for some anti-trade rhetoric during the primary.

2. McCain's health care plan is better than Obama's. Health care needs to be separated from employment, and McCain's plan is a good first step towards doing that. Allowing cross-border sales is a good idea as well.

The main knock against McCain's plan is that, allegedly, it would drive people off insurance based on the assumption that employers will seek to avoid a tax on insurance and stop offering it. But this ignores reality. Employers won't pay the tax on an employer-provided plan; employees will. (The heath care plan will go to an employees AGI.) Because McCain's tax credit is nonrefundable, it will exceed the tax due on this added benefit for virtally all employees. Employees are not going to be dropped from Employers plans. (The disinformation on McCain's plan is pretty bad ... most left-leaning commentators respond to a charicature of the plan.)

3. McCain is more likely than Obama to enact immigration reform. Obama will not be able to touch immigration reform with a twenty-foot poll -- aside from union resistance, the nativist backlash could cost democrats the house. But sensible, comprehensive immigration reform is sorely needed.

Thanks, von. You skipped my first two questions, and setting aside the merits of the positions you name, such as they are, I'm unclear why you'd conclude that McCain has good judgement from them, but at least you gave me three things you think are positive about McCain, and that's more than I knew before, so thanks.

"McCain's health care plan is better than Obama's."

How do they compare for unemployed people?

"But sensible, comprehensive immigration reform is sorely needed."

I'll agree with that, at least.

"The main knock against McCain's plan is that, allegedly, it would drive people off insurance based on the assumption that employers will seek to avoid a tax on insurance and stop offering it. But this ignores reality. Employers won't pay the tax on an employer-provided plan; employees will."

Unfortunately, "reality" is slightly more complicated. Employers are seeking to _motivate_ employees to be employees. In particular, they're seeking to motivate certain elite employees -- and benefitting everyone else as a kind of side effect. At least, that's the argument made in a health policy journal last month:

"The tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance provides a subsidy to people who obtain coverage through their jobs. A sizable economics literature shows that the tax subsidy greatly increases employers' offers of health benefits. Some of this research indicates that employers' decisions are most responsive to the "tax price" faced by their more highly compensated workers. However, to qualify for the tax subsidy, employers must abide by IRS nondiscrimination rules, which require firms to provide similar benefits to high- and low-wage employees. These rules have the effect of increasing the health insurance coverage of less skilled workers who work in firms that also employ highly skilled workers. The tax exclusion also strengthens risk pooling by creating an incentive for younger, healthier people to remain in employer-sponsored groups, where they effectively subsidize higher-risk workers."

The full article (with footnotes citing literature reviews etc. omitted here, and background on the authors, which may be helpful in determining whether they are "left-leaning commentators" or caricaturists) can be found online at http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/
hlthaff.27.6.w472/DC1.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Whatnot


  • visitors since 3/2/2004

April 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      
Blog powered by Typepad

QuantCast