Friends, Americans, Countrymen: don't go to Canada. Look, it's not all bad. Read on for some encouraging items from today's news.
Last year, in a well publicized terrorism case, the U.S. Government successfully convicted three Moroccan immigrants. But, having determined its own prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense, the Justice Department is now asking the judge to overturn the conviction. Prosecutorial misconduct is nothing to be proud of, but the self-correction is.
In other good news, a federal judge shot down an attempt, by a company that manufactures garage door openers, to use the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to prevent a rival from making compatible devices. The judge said:
The DMCA does not create a new property right for copyright owners. Nor, for that matter, does it divest the public of the property rights that the Copyright Act has long granted to the public. The anticircumvention and anti-trafficking provisions of the DMCA create new grounds of liability. A copyright owner seeking to impose liability on an accused circumventor must demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the circumvention at issue and a use relating to a property right for which the Copyright Act permits the copyright owner to withhold authorization-as well as notice that authorization was withheld. A copyright owner seeking to impose liability on an accused trafficker must demonstrate that the trafficker's device enables either copyright infringement or a prohibited circumvention. Here, the District Court correctly ruled that Chamberlain pled no connection between unauthorized use of its copyrighted software and Skylink's accused transmitter. This connection is critical to sustaining a cause of action under the DMCA. We therefore affirm the District Court's summary judgment in favor of Skylink.
Sadly, it's not all peaches and peach pie. I forced myself to watch Dick Cheney open his peach pie hole at the Republican Convention. A few of my favorite items:
"CHENEY: Our nation has the best health care in the world and President Bush is making it more affordable and accessible to all Americans. " What the Vice President meant, of course, is that "the number of people without health insurance grew last year, to 45 million -- an increase to 15.6 percent from 15.2 percent." (According to the report, "The historical record is marked by a 12-year period from 1987 to 1998 when the uninsured rate (12.9 percent in 1987) either increased or was unchanged from one year to the next. After peaking at 16.3 percent in 1998, the rate fell for two years in a row to 14.2 percent in 2000, before the latest period of annual increases to 15.6 percent in 2003. ")
Listen: even if you believe this administration is not responsible for the increased percentage of the uninsured during its watch, don't stand there and tell me it's getting better when just the opposite is true. Next week: "I'm proud to say President Bush is making the Earth's climate grow cooler for all the people of the World."
Here I am, thinking Kerry was clearly calling for greater sensitivity to those who are not our enemies, the innocents who will suffer in our war on terror. But apparently he meant we should be more sensitive to Al Qaeda. Stupid stupid stupid! Thanks for clearing that up. And Kerry won't prosecute the War on Terror until we're attacked again? What a dumb ass! I don't remember him saying that, actually, but Cheney wouldn't mischaracterize his statements. Cheney is an honorable man.
Did anybody else think the sea of delegates holding their arms up at an angle, four fingers spread ("four more years!"), palms downward, looked vaguely familiar?
Posted by cradle at September 2, 2004 12:23 AMWhat Cheney means is we have the 37th best healtcare system at last count by the WHO. http://www.who.int/whr2001/2001/archives/2000/en/statistics.htm
I guess conventions are just for lying?
Posted by: Brooke at September 2, 2004 07:17 AMMy brother was telling me that same thing last night, that Kerry said his policy would be to "react strongly to any attacks," and that waiting until we're attacked is no good. I was flatfooted, with no refutation handy. Any idea what he said that's being distorted this way?
Posted by: Andrew at September 2, 2004 09:15 AMHmm.
I also heard Cheney say that Mr. Kerry would only attack a country when the UN approved. [Followed by hisses and boos].
I'm a little worried. Is it really so uncool to be multilateral, you know, to HAVE THE SUPPORT OF THE WORLD?
Yeah, their nazis.
40 million people receive Medicare, another 40 million people receive Medicaid. 8.4 million are covered by DoD TRICARE. There's 88 million right there. Heck, we're well on the way to socialized medicine, which fits in with the fact that 50% of healthcare dollars that are spent by the government.
The Current Population Survey (CPS) that generates those "uninsured" numbers also does not reveal how many of those uninsured are in a short term position between jobs or are long-term uninusred. We expect about 9 million people in the labor force to be out of a job at any point (plus many million non-working dependents) given the current unemployment rate - though many COBRA.
There have also been issues raised about CPS overstating the lack of health insurance (http://www.census.gov/dusd/MAB/wp218.pdf).
That said, a lot of people who don't have health insurance are healthy people. (Infact, we may know some). They don't purchase health insurance because they don't feel they need it. Manditory health insurance is one option to solve this, without complete socialization.
When you look at the self-employed, there actually is no difference in health outcomes to regular workers, despite the fact that the self-employed are much less likely to have health insurance. http://www.nber.org/papers/w8316
The other issue is high-deductible health insurance, which is probably a better deal for many people. A $5,150-deductible family insurance policy costs about $300/mo. 70% of insured Americans don’t even meet or exceed a $500 deductible in one year.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/business/FinancialMakeover/MAKEOVER_040316.html
New law allows a pre-tax healthcare savings account (HSA) to allow a citizen to save up deductible money in coordination with a high deductible healthcare plan (HDHP)
http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js1278.htm
Anyway, I am all for detaching employer-paid healthcare from tax policy. It distorts the market badly.
Posted by: Tom at September 2, 2004 09:42 PMOK, I'm not sure if you think too many people are insured, but even so, it still doesn't excuse Cheney's misstatements about the trend.
Personally, I share Andri's horror that a nation like America doesn't provide universal health care, something people in most industrialized countries take for granted.
Regarding Medicare and Medicaid, I don't want to see a return to a time when the poor and elderly were uninsured.
The people I have known who don't have health insurance (I live with one now) generally aren't happy about it. They live in fear of needing hospitilization, never go to the doctor, don't get routine medical care, and instead of treating illness earlier, when it's cheaper, wind up waiting until they are very ill and must visit the emergency room. The reason my roommate doesn't have health insurance is because she can't afford it.
Regarding the NBER paper, you seem to be citing it to argue that health insuarance doesn't make us healthier. I would need to see more than a single paper (which lookes at indirectly correlated variables) before I accept this rather remarkable claim. It certainly isn't clear to me that cancelling my health insurance won't affect my health outcome.
I'll look into high-deductable health insurance. Perhaps that's a good way to increase the number of the insured. (But if health insurance doesn't make us healthier, what's the point?)
Reagarding the HSAs, there is some evidence to suggest that they would actually increase the number of uninsured: http://www.cbpp.org/5-10-04health.htm
In the final analysis, I think there is a spectrum. At one end, everybody pays for their own medical expenses. Those who are wealthy and healthy are fine, and have lower taxes to boot. Those who are poor and unhealthy suffer and fend for themselves. At the other end, we have a system where everybody contributes to a giant pool, each paying according to his or her ability to pay. The healthy and the sick, the poor and the wealthy receive coverage. The risk is spread out: most people won't have large costs, but if they do, they're OK. But this has its problems too, among them inefficiency and rising costs.
I don't have easy answers, and really nobody does. But something closer to the latter looks better to me than the former.
Posted by: David at September 3, 2004 01:13 AMI personally cannot wait until the vice-presidential debates. I really think Edwards, as a charismatic litigator, destroys Cheney on paper. I think it would be excellent if he can get Cheney all huffy and maybe choke back a "F-- off" or two. Best of all would be if Edwards walks over to Cheney's podium and goes "hey Dick, I have a secret I have to whisper in your ear," and then when Dick leans over to hear it, Edwards SCREAMS AT THE TOP OF HIS LUNGS AND CHENEY'S HEART FINALLY GIVES UP.
Posted by: cliff at September 3, 2004 08:07 PMAndrew said: Any idea what he said that's being distorted this way?
Fred Kaplan of Slate has this to say:
"He declared at the Democratic Convention," Cheney said of Kerry, "that he will forcefully defend America after we have been attacked. My fellow Americans, we have already been attacked." Where in Kerry's speech did he say this? Nowhere.
I looked at Kerry's speech again. I think the paragraph Cheney is twisting must be this one:
I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as President. Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security. And I will build a stronger American military.
Posted by: David at September 4, 2004 03:48 PM