May 19, 2005
Why Don't Some People Understand Insurance?
Over at Outside the Beltway I wrote a post on state and federal employees who are smokers paying more for their health insurance (right now the link isn't working which is one reason why I'm replying here). Anyhow, one commenter, Dread Pundit Bluto, wrote the following,
Steve, you ignorant slut. Once the insurance companies have the power that sheep such as yourself are all too anxious to grant them, you won't have to go out and pay for that genetic test yourself - the insurance company will have your pedigree available in its records.If smokers can be singled out for higher premiums, so can drinkers, and fast food eaters, and people who engage in unprotected promiscuous sex, and people who might be prone to...oh, I don't know...sickle cell anemia.
Steve, you should run to your nearest bookstore and purchase a copy of "The Merchant of Venus" by Frederick Pohl. Then get "The Mystery of Capital" by Hernando de Soto. Together, they will help you understand the proper function of government in promoting and regulating capitalism.
Frankly, I just don't see much of a problem here.
Lets look at the first paragraph. Would insurance companies like to get my genetic information and use it in determining my premiums or even if I should be insured or not? Absolutely? It might tell them if I have a genetic predisposition for a specific type of disease. As a consumer would this make me worse off? Sure. Without this information the insurance company would face an adverse selection problem and probably couldn't due much about it. With the information they could charge a higher premium for me and people with similar genetic profiles.
I suppose we could argue over whether insurance companies should be allowed to do this or not. One reason for letting them do it is that without this kind of information insurance is likely to be incomplete and those who don't have a genetic predisposition for a type of disease are going to be subsidizing those who do. In short, right now those who don't have such genetic predispositions are the losers, allowing insurance companies to aquire such information would result in those with genetic predispositions to becoming the losers.
The second paragraph is also quite obvious. We already do this with automobile insurance (hey maybe Bluto's a crappy driver and this is why he is pissed off and wants the good drivers to shoulder some of his costs). If you have a bad driving record, are irresponsible, and so forth you'll face higher rates. Think of it this way, suppose you are healthy and you eat right and exercise. Would you want to be forced into an insurance pool with a fat slob who pounds McDonalds Big Macs for lunch and dinner and starts the day with 3 sausage McGriddles, slugs down a case of beer, and engages in unprotected promiscuous sex? If you are thinking, "Uhhhh, is there a way for me to opt out...self-insure...something...anything?" Then you are basically in the camp that thinks Dread Pundit Bluto is full of crapola.
As for the last suggestion....where did I say there is no role for the government in regulating markets? I've actually argued exactly the opposite and that one role can be to help provide information cheaply so that people and firms can make more informed decisions. But, perhaps making decisions in ignorance is better as Dread Pundit Bluto is quite strongly suggesting.
Posted by Steve at May 19, 2005 08:32 PM | TrackBackHey Mr. Verdon, check out the new Japanese pro basketball league. They have a team called the Osaka Deinonychus.
Posted by: John Thacker on May 19, 2005 09:51 PMI'm kind of surprised people are so shocked that this might happen. I think part of it is this victim complex many smokers have these days.
Look, I go to the gym every morning and watch what i eat (during the week anyway. Friday at 5:00pm until Sunday night, i treat myself to the good stuff). By all accounts, not only am i healthier than most other 33yr olds, I'm probably in better shape than most 23 yr olds.
That being said, i do like have a cigarette or two when i drink. My fiance is the same way.
due to that fact, we pay significantly more for life insurance than do non-smokers, most of whom we're, I'm sure, far healthier than.
The point being, it sucks but it's reality. Either we stop smoking altogether, or we don't bitch about it.
Posted by: Jeff on May 20, 2005 08:12 AMUnfortunately, this is being spun as a lifestyle issue, but it is not. It turns out that the premuim for employee health insurance took a steep rise this year. Rather than allocate the increase across the whole population, the legislature allocated the complete increase to the smokers. That resulted in a > 50% increase to what one would assume is the 25% of the relevant population. Now, no one believes that it costs >50% to insure a smoker over a non smoker, so one is left to assume that the legislature chose to punish a politically incorrect group.
But, what becomes interesting is how does this provision get enforced. If someone claims to have quit smoking this year, does he get a decrease in premium? If someone starts, does he need to raise his hand and volunteer for a 55% a premium increase. Are we going to have the state institute a smoking test?
Then, if the preium increases again next year, who gets stuck this time: smokers again, those over 50, etc?
This truly is a slippery slope. What happens if smokers ban together and take the state to court alleging that the increase premium does not reflect increased risks? How many classes is the legislature willing to create?
Rick
Posted by: Rick Caird on May 20, 2005 08:32 AMIf smokers can be singled out for higher premiums... this is the world as it exists today, not a hypothetical. Jeff, above, noted this.
I think economists and so-called "consumer advocates" worry a bit too much about adverse selection issues, however. In practice, A.S. is much noisier and harder than you might otherwise think. It's still a big issue, no doubt, but it isn't the make-or-break problem it is often made out to be.
The state of Georgia, of course, is fully self-insured, meaning that they come up with their own rates to charge members, make up the difference out of a fund, and are on the hook for all medical costs. In such a system, they make the laws and choose the rates people pay. Therefore, it is likely impossible to know whether the surcharge is actuarially fair or not.
Analogously, if an employer buys a plan from a private company, I'm not sure what restrictions they have (it likely depends on the state). I assume that the employer has the option to pass on the surcharge, but they can't charge *more* than the surcharge. That would be interesting to know. Regardless, when the state *is* your healthcare provider, don't expect the same level of protection. When the state falls short on cash, well, you can see the results.
This is yet another reason why we really must have single-payer healthcare in this country. When the government starts to run short on cash, they could simply raise premiums on targeted minorities who the party in power believes they can fleece for some extra handy cash. Wouldn't that be great? You could get your healthcare and have other people pay for it (as long as you kept winning elections).
Posted by: Victor on May 20, 2005 08:57 AMWhy don't some people understand invasion of privacy?
Steve, you are clearly a moral coward trying to obfuscate the point in a different forum.
There is nothing wrong with the link.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto on May 20, 2005 09:25 AMSteve, you are clearly a moral coward trying to obfuscate the point in a different forum.
Not only is this an ad hominem, but it's a very strange ad hominem for someone to make who posts epinonymously.
I speak as one who often finds myself in disagreement with Steve but is usually willing to hear him out.
Steve,
I think we've discussed this more than a bit, though perhaps on my prior blog.
As an attorney who practices a great deal of hospital and pharmaceutical litigation and insurance defense work, it is shocking to me how little people really understand about insurance.
Like anything, the issues get much more complicated once you do understand it. In a perfect world, an insurer obviously shouldn't be able to deny coverage or charge higher premiums to someone who has the BRCA1 mutation, of course, but in this world, if the insurer cannot do so, as you note, an adverse selection problem exists, and the insurer may have to (1) raise premiums for all its enrollees; or (2) cut coverage either in quality (types of procedures covered) or quantity (likely cutting out those who most need insurance, those who can least afford to privately sponsor their own health care).
Of course, the issue gets even more complicated when one realizes that the sensitivity of these genetic tests is quite low at this point, unless we're talking about a monogenic genetic disease. The existence of the BRCA1 mutation may place the individual with the mutation into a pool of persons who have greater risk of developing breast cancer, but it is remarkably poor at predicting who in fact will develop the disease.
Added to which is the already existing practice of Ashkenazi Jewish women refusing to undergo the test for the BRCA1 gene for fear that they will be denied insurance, and you have an incredibly complicated problem.
JMO.
Posted by: TP on May 20, 2005 10:20 AMKent,
First, Steve should have had the guts to respond in the original forum. Clearly, he felt more comfortable pitching his snit on his own blog. If I were to initiate such an attack, I would certainly notify the other blogger via email. Steve didn't. I found out about the post through referral tracking.
As to your point about eponymous posting, I'm having trouble finding the right phone and street address listing for "Steve".
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto on May 20, 2005 10:32 AMGiven that BRCA1 is such a poor predictor of breast cancer, the rational insurance rate for those carrying it should not be that much more than for other insurees, all other things being equal.
The only reason why a BRCA1 carrier would be denied insurance is because the insurer is prohibited from collecting the modest surcharge, but is not prohibited from deying insurance entirely. This seems like a perverse result to me.
Two extreme ways to avoid this perverse outcome are to require the insurers to cover everyone according to a rate schedule determined by regulators, or let the insurers charge the rate they believe is rational for each individual, with regulation limited to making sure the insurer has an adequate reserve of assets to cover future claims. The big split between liberals and libertarians/conservatives is which of these two extremes is itself the more perverse.
Bluto,
I skimmed your stuff. So many insults! Steve's post doesn't read like a snit or an attack. Yours does.
Yours,
WInce
Bluto,
And you might show better manners if you hadn't skimmed yourself. What do you think Steve's comment in parenthesis above, to wit, "(right now the link isn't working which is one reason why I'm replying here)", means? And oddly, right below your quoted comment there is a trackback leading right here in the original Outside the Beltway thread.
Before you start calling people cowards you ought to check your facts.
Yours,
Wince
Bluto, grow up.
Posted by: SPQR on May 20, 2005 03:00 PMBeyond Bluto's juvenile verbal diarrhea, his basic reaction to the idea that an insurance company would base premium decisions upon "personal" information appears at first to be a reaction from some sort of sense of privacy.
But this is an illusion IMO. Almost everyone has adopted the liberal slant that medical insurance is "different". That they are entitled to seemingly "free" health care and that they are immune from the consequences of their own conduct with respect to health care.
And from this p.o.v., any action by a insurance company to base premiums upon actual risk factors appears to cheat the public of their illusions regarding this entitlement. ( It doesn't help that people hold to a mythology that if an insurance company differentiates premiums, that the difference is "profit" - that's typical of the kind of economic ignorance that irritates you and I, Steve. )
Posted by: Robin Roberts on May 20, 2005 03:10 PMWince and Nod, as Steve's lickspittles you've already received more reply than you deserve on my blog. Oh, and Wince, I believe that Steve lied in his parenthetical statement, that should have been obvious.
Robin, it would have served you better to familiarize yourself with the argument before spouting sophistry. That means you should have read the thread at OTB. You obviously didn't, or you wouldn't have taken the tack you did, vis-a-vis intemperate comments. Try reading Steve's first comment to me. Steve has reaped what he sowed.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto on May 20, 2005 04:13 PMBluto,
There is the small matter that the link really wasn't working. I had a horrible time getting to the Outside the Beltway post. Eventually I got there via searching by author.
So now you've accused Steve of being a liar and a coward when the evidence shows otherwise. Lickspittle does not mean "able to easily prove that I, Bluto, do not know what I am talking about". Please stop using it like that.
Yours,
Wince
Bluto,
I read your first comment:
This idiot is seriously proposing that we turn over power to insurance companies that any rational person denies to the government? How do lunatics like this get published?You start by calling someone a crazy idiot.
Then I read Steve's reply to you. It was, umm, gentile. Here's the only possible insulting bit:
There. Is. No. Free. Lunch.Steve didn't sow anything. Read what you wrote. Read what Steve and others said. You are being treated far better than you are treating others.
Have you got that?
Yours,
Wince
You should have read the thread more carefully. My reply was directed at someone named Radley (with whom Steve didn't even completely agree) Steve quoted, not something Steve actually authored.
Now reread Steve's reply to me and tell me it was "gentile" (or did you mean "genteel"; if this is a religious argument, I'm not following it).
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto on May 20, 2005 05:20 PMYes, Bluto, you are not following much of anything. Ooooo, ooooo, a spelling flame. That's so lame.
But so far your antics are amusing. No doubt, that will end soon.
Posted by: Robin Roberts on May 20, 2005 05:45 PMDread,
No, you should have read my comment more carefully, other than for spelling (genteel is correct). I said, "You start by calling someone". I admit I should have been more specific, but when I said someone, I knew it wasn't Steve. I also quoted the most insulting thing in Steve's reply to you. Where's the big insult? After which you post this:
Steve, you ignorant slut. Once the insurance companies have the power that sheep such as yourself are all too anxious to grant them, you won’t have to go out and pay for that genetic test yourself – the insurance company will have your pedigree available in its records.Calling someone a sheep and talking about his pedigree? Right. I think I can recognize whose posts and comments are producing the most flame and smoke. Yours.
Now, if you cooled off, maybe we could talk about the problem of how privacy distorts insurance rates so that responsible people are penalized with higher rates AND lack of privacy penalizes people for conditions that are beyond their control. Which is the actual technical problem being discussed.
Maybe I'd even mention the time my lack of privacy almost kept me from getting a new job. It seems the blankety-blank drug test showed me as a smoker (I'm not, but I had spent an hour in a closed room with a chain smoker the previous day). And I also revealed my use of a prescribed drug, and I got grilled over that.
So maybe you'd even get a sympathetic ear if you controlled your keyboard a little better.
Yours,
Wince
Sorry Wince, if you can't see the insult in Steve's original reply to me, then there's something basically wrong with your reading comprehension, or you're simply too blinded by bias to allow yourself to see.
If you truly submitted to a test for legal substances simply to get a job, you are, indeed, endowed with ovine characteristics.
As for a "sympathetic ear", the wolf cares not how many the sheep be.
Robin, you're obviously a rank amateur when it comes to a flamewar. You should retire before embarrassing yourself further.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto on May 20, 2005 06:47 PMBluto,
I was engaging in flame wars when the older boys were still stealing your lunch money.
Bluto,
Quote Steve's big, bad insult. Since you haven't, I maintain it doesn't exist. So far I've had a logical, rational argument against everything you've said, and you are reduced to mere insult.
I win.
Yours,
Wince
Oh, and based on my demonstrated ability versus you, I'm clearly a wolf. I learned from my drug test. I was a young wolf.
What's you goal, Bluto? To have allies in your fight for rights, or to insult people?
Yours,
Wince
Good one, Robin [rolls eyes].
Wince, you already quoted the insult, did you forget? Then Steve escalated with this post on his blog, but neglected to email me about it. Remember? Very cowardly. Try to focus.
Sorry, making puppy eyes at Steve doesn't qualify as "logical, rational argument".
Have you got that?
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto on May 20, 2005 07:11 PMSheep don't make useful allies, Wince, and I'm not one to back away from a confrontation, physical or verbal.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto on May 20, 2005 07:14 PMIt does sound slightly testy to me. So far, you've called me, hmmm, let's see: "hooligan", denigrated my reasoning ability, "lickspittle", unable to read, biased, a sheep and that I'm making puppy eyes. I stand by this statement: You are being treated far better than you are treating others. I also make this plea: Based on some demonstrated reasoning ability and his blogroll, Bluto, is clearly intelligent and well informed enough to have useful things to say. Let's treat him civilly and see if he responds.
Bluto, the signal to noise ratio of your comments is very low. It would be higher if you didn't feel compelled to flame, and then you might start working towards protecting those privacy rights you are so concerned about, as well as promoting economically sensible insurance regulations so that for example, people get low rates, are incented to do what they can to hold down high costs and aren't penalized for genetic conditions beyond their control. How? Dunno, seems like you might have, at the very least, some voters here.
What are your goals?
Yours,
Wince
Bluto,
This "sheep" has matched you argument for argument, without resort to insults, although I have indulged in a some sarcasm and bragging. If you are a wolf I must be higher in the pack. As you've noticed, I'm not backing down from a confrontation either. I've just shifted my tactics to serve my greater goal: keeping the government in check AND my rights protected against those non-government agents who would take them. Why? You aren't my enemy, and Steve isn't yours. That's what the leader in a wolf pack does.
Yours,
Wince
I thought nobody could be both crazier AND less creative RE: Flaming than Deb; contratulations Bluto, you've proven me wrong.
Posted by: Timothy on May 20, 2005 08:38 PMActually, Bluto, my comment was not an attempt at humor, but a factual statement.
Hopefully you are not short 50 cents for milk today.
Posted by: Robin Roberts on May 21, 2005 09:51 AMWhy don't some people understand invasion of privacy?Steve, you are clearly a moral coward trying to obfuscate the point in a different forum.
The link was broken when I posted here, and it is the reason why I posted here. There is no lie or moral cowardice only your own inability to formulate a cogent argument. There is really no privacy issue here unless insurance companies are obtaining such infromation wihtout your knowledge. You always have the option of refusing to give the insurance company your DNA and not having insurance.
As to your point about eponymous posting, I'm having trouble finding the right phone and street address listing for "Steve".
So you failed to notice that the url is steveVERDON.com, did you? Tell me Bluto, what is your first and last name. Show us you actually have the guts to put it out there for the world to see. Don't tell me it is that privacy thing again right? Well it seems I'm either stupid or braver (or both) than you when it comes to the issue of my name. By the way, do your personal checks say "Dread Pundit Bluto"? Sheesh.
Oh...and Bluto...are you using an anonymizer or running some sort of script to hide your IP address from me? You do realize that the IP address for commenters is available to me...don't you?
You should have read the thread more carefully. My reply was directed at someone named Radley (with whom Steve didn't even completely agree) Steve quoted, not something Steve actually authored.Now reread Steve's reply to me and tell me it was "gentile" (or did you mean "genteel"; if this is a religious argument, I'm not following it).
Of coure, I don't "agree" with Radley entirely. Insurance markets and the issues surrounding them are not easily solved as either you or Radley seems to think. The fact that you see this is such simple terms is a testament to your lack of understanding of the finer points of the issue. Given your bellicose and stubborn nature further attempts to explain them to you would be a waste of time.
I suppose you'll call me a coward or some other name for not responding sooner. Please feel free to do so. Although I suppose the excuse that I was actually busy with real life issues is completely lost on you.
Victor,
This is yet another reason why we really must have single-payer healthcare in this country. When the government starts to run short on cash, they could simply raise premiums on targeted minorities who the party in power believes they can fleece for some extra handy cash. Wouldn't that be great? You could get your healthcare and have other people pay for it (as long as you kept winning elections).
An excellent point.
Posted by: Steve on May 21, 2005 04:20 PMSteve,
Hope the real-life issues settle down for you, excellent post.
Posted by: Timothy on May 21, 2005 06:25 PMThere is really no privacy issue here unless insurance companies are obtaining such infromation wihtout your knowledge. You always have the option of refusing to give the insurance company your DNA and not having insurance.You advocate being irresponsible and relying on public assistance, which is notoriously inefficient and wasteful, as a choice? Quite disingenuous of you, offering a non-option as a legitimate choice.
Of coure, I don't "agree" with Radley entirely. Insurance markets and the issues surrounding them are not easily solved as either you or Radley seems to think. The fact that you see this is such simple terms is a testament to your lack of understanding of the finer points of the issue. Given your bellicose and stubborn nature further attempts to explain them to you would be a waste of time.Insurance, in our capitalist system, is simply one form of commercial enterprise. Commercial organizations will take each and every advantage offered them, and resist any regulatory efforts they perceive as adverse to their interests. And rightly so. That is the proper function of a commercial enterprise in a capitalist society. It's not their job to decide what is fair or moral behavior, only to see that their actions benefit their stockholders or owners.
The purpose of insurance companies is to generate profits through organizing the sharing of risk. In a perfect world (for health insurance companies) every policy holder would telecommute, venturing out of the nice, safe womb of his or her fire-proofed, earthquake-proofed, hurricane-and flood-proofed home only to seek the approved medical care necessary to sustain life and put off death benefit payments as long as possible. No nasty dangerous cars to restrict the flow of vast, multi-stage trucks (larger trucks mean fewer truck drivers mean less risk mean fewer claims) delivering essential and approved nutrients. And rightly so. It is not the function of the insurance company to balance quality of life versus risk, but only to collect premiums and minimize claims. That balance is the business of government.
My position is that quality of life should be the default position. I will seek to influence my representatives accordingly. You are free to do likewise. I will therefore oppose backdoor usurpations of legitimate government powers such as the "legislation through litigation" successfully used by certain states' attorneys' general to extract money from the tobacco companies' poorer customers. I will oppose backdoor prohibition of tobacco and alcohol as well. I will also oppose the efforts of idiots like Joan Claybrook, who sought, during the Carter administration, to ban motorcycles from interstate highways. You are free to disagree and agitate accordingly.
So you failed to notice that the url is steveVERDON.com, did you? Tell me Bluto, what is your first and last name. Show us you actually have the guts to put it out there for the world to see. Don't tell me it is that privacy thing again right? Well it seems I'm either stupid or braver (or both) than you when it comes to the issue of my name. By the way, do your personal checks say "Dread Pundit Bluto"? Sheesh.
Oh...and Bluto...are you using an anonymizer or running some sort of script to hide your IP address from me? You do realize that the IP address for commenters is available to me...don't you?Steve, you're more than welcome to track me down and show up at my place of residence. I doubt you'd enjoy the experience, but I probably would. Part of being a family man is to be a little more paranoid than we are when we're seething twentysomethings. It might interest you to know that I scooped Newsweek by about a month on the 357Hosting story. It might interest you further to know that after that story and related ones about Nada al-Rubaiee and albasrah.net, and an interview I did with an al-Jazeera contributor, I received a large number of hits from visitors with IP addresses in places like Jordan and Saudi Arabia. I find myself unwilling to expose my family to even this implied threat. I expunged references to my legal name on the blog, and I really don't care much what you think of that decision.
The link was broken when I posted here, and it is the reason why I posted here. There is no lie or moral cowardice only your own inability to formulate a cogent argument.And I have your word for that? Not good enough, as amply demonstrated by your behavior.
I suppose you'll call me a coward or some other name for not responding sooner. Please feel free to do so. Although I suppose the excuse that I was actually busy with real life issues is completely lost on you.Good lord man, are you fifteen? Stop sulking.
This will be my last word on this subject, at least in this forum.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto on May 21, 2005 09:22 PMSo what we have are people who are generally in agreement, who want quality of life and freedom of choice without ignoring the economics which drive the issues, but who all feel disrespected and decide to play "let's fight" instead of "let's learn".
Steve, of course there are privacy issues. And there is a fairness issue. It is not fair for folks with genetic health risks to have to pay more. That gives them a double whammy: higher prices and a likely health problem.
If your goal is sensible regulation, you should persuade people, not piss them off. You can beat people over the head with economic realities, but if you don't take into account what they want the economic realities will be overcome by the political realities and we end up with politically entrenched boondoggles like Social Security.
Bluto, of course people should be able to freely take risks to live out the poetry that is life so that the verses scan the way they want to. But that doesn't mean I should be forced to subsidize anybodies risky choices.
If your goal is quality of life, you've come to great place to discuss the hidden costs, so we can get quality of life without unintended side effects. If you use the political realities to ignore the economic realities in order to protect quality of life you are just pushing problems down the road for our grandchildren to face. I don't think you want boondoggles either.
And, for what it's worth, I know non-anonymous bloggers who have received death threats and who've had Child Protective Services called on them. Bluto is just being smart, and I clearly support his choice.
Yours,
Wince
You advocate being irresponsible and relying on public assistance, which is notoriously inefficient and wasteful, as a choice?
I have advocated nothing Bluto, but merely pointed out the choices. That you can't see this reflects on your ability to divorce your feelings from the issue, and this of course makes you a poor commentator as Wince & Nod noted above.
Quite disingenuous of you, offering a non-option as a legitimate choice.
Tell me do you support a living wage? You should the logic is identical to you logic regarding insurance. Victor nailed you on that one.
Insurance, in our capitalist system, is simply one form of commercial enterprise. Commercial organizations will take each and every advantage offered them, and resist any regulatory efforts they perceive as adverse to their interests. And rightly so. That is the proper function of a commercial enterprise in a capitalist society. It's not their job to decide what is fair or moral behavior, only to see that their actions benefit their stockholders or owners.
Have I argued otherwise? I don't think I have offered any argument that a firm is a moral entity. In fact, I have posts arguing that firms only responsibility is fiduciary (profit maximization).
The purpose of insurance companies is to generate profits through organizing the sharing of risk. In a perfect world (for health insurance companies) every policy holder would telecommute, venturing out of the nice, safe womb of his or her fire-proofed, earthquake-proofed, hurricane-and flood-proofed home only to seek the approved medical care necessary to sustain life and put off death benefit payments as long as possible.
Why? The risks of leaving one's household are actually quite small. The losses associated with eliminating risk are high. This comment above verifys for me my claim that people overestimate small risks and underestimate large risks.
My position is that quality of life should be the default position. I will seek to influence my representatives accordingly. You are free to do likewise. I will therefore oppose backdoor usurpations of legitimate government powers such as the "legislation through litigation" successfully used by certain states' attorneys' general to extract money from the tobacco companies' poorer customers.
WTFAYTA? Since...uhhh...since when did this become a discussion on judicial activism? Shifting the sands to a topic your feel more comfortable with, perchance?
Steve, you're more than welcome to track me down and show up at my place of residence.
No need to Bluto. I know who the real coward is. And no, there was never any threat; just merely pointing out that your "issues" with privacy are really actually quite laughable. If you want real privacy either you are not doing enough to secure it or you are using it as a smokescreen for something else.
I find myself unwilling to expose my family to even this implied threat. I expunged references to my legal name on the blog, and I really don't care much what you think of that decision.
Well frankly I think you are a coward. You can't even leave up the post that slams me.
And I have your word for that? Not good enough, as amply demonstrated by your behavior.
Well Bluto, from now on I'll simply assume you are a liar too since I consider your word worth nothing.
This will be my last word on this subject, at least in this forum.
Promise?
Wince,
Steve, of course there are privacy issues. And there is a fairness issue. It is not fair for folks with genetic health risks to have to pay more.
Why not? Why should I be forced to pay more in insurance for such people? Like them I am not responsible for their condition. Having other pay for those with "bad" genetic profiles is just the same as making those with such profiles pay higher premiums just on a smaller scale. Also, by driving up premiums for all consumers you could be inducing those least able to afford the increase in premiums to opting for no insurance.
Perhaps, if society feels leaving such people to their own devices is unfair a tax is the way to go that subsidizes those who have "bad" genetic profiles. Of course, taxes also come with their own problems as well.
Bluto is just being smart, and I clearly support his choice.
That is fine, personally I don't mind psuedonyms on the net, but to accuse others of cowardice when they lack the intestinal fortitude to keep posts up is both cowardly and hypocritical. Besides, you are asking me to accept Bluto's word that he has kids, and frankly that isn't good enough for me (this part is to show what an complete jackass Bluto is).
Posted by: Steve on May 22, 2005 02:21 PMBy "this subject", I meant insurance and personal liberty. I'm happy though, to respond to Steve's frantic posturing, and the real source of his vast displeasure.
lack the intestinal fortitude to keep posts upHahaha...here's Stevie boy's real issue - I took down the post that linked to Dispeptis Interruptus after making my point to my satisfaction and agitating his regulars.
Steve, I have a responsiblity to my readers. I don't direct them to the site of a pompous ass such as yourself unless there's something of redeeming value or interest for them to find there. That should tell you where you rate: somewhere well below Michael Crook of forsakethetroops.info.
I haven't seen such amusing internet braggadocio and personal puffing since leaving Slate's Fray years ago. Thanks for the entertainment, Steve, and, again, you should read the Pohl and De Soto books (Strunk and White wouldn't hurt, either). Might clear some things up for you. Cya.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto on May 22, 2005 03:28 PMI do thank you for one thing Steve. I haven't had this much fun provoking a self-important blowhard into showing his ass in years. Just make sure you don't push that throbbing vein in your forehead too far. Stroking out now would ruin all the fun.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto on May 22, 2005 03:53 PMBluto reminds me of what it was like when all the AOL lamers first got Usenet access in the '90's.
Yeah, every AOL lamer rolled into one.
Posted by: Robin Roberts on May 22, 2005 04:19 PMBluto, thanks for the additional comments. You know, the similarities between you and Deb Frisch is...well rather disturbing.
Posted by: Steve on May 22, 2005 08:10 PMThanks, Steve. I'll not get that image out of my mind for a long time.
Posted by: Robin Roberts on May 22, 2005 08:45 PMYeah, first thing I thought when I noticed the number of comments was that Deb had been by here. Not Deb, it turns out, but a temperamentally exact replica.
Posted by: Slartibartfast on May 22, 2005 09:28 PMSteve, you're more than welcome. I've enjoyed this. Any time you get serious about working on your syntax and grammar, let me know. Remember, writing is a form of thought; disordered writing indicates disordered thought patterns.
And don't forget; Pohl, de Soto, and especially, Strunk and White.
One last thing: could you post another diatribe against me? I only got 14 or 15 visitors from this one, but every little bit helps.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto on May 23, 2005 09:16 PMBluto,
A friendly bit of advice to a newbie, spelling and grammar flames are well, the hallmark of a true lamer.
Posted by: Steve on May 23, 2005 09:44 PMThat's certainly the cliché, but proper usage is one thing that separates those who think clearly from those who don't. Your errors seem to be tied to emotion, rather than educational deficiency, so that's a hopeful sign for you. You have the potential; you're just not working up to it.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto on May 23, 2005 10:44 PMWell, it's always nice to have a mentor, isn't it? I happen to agree with TDPB, as I do with the inimitable Gary Farber (although I frequently fail to live up to the standards of the latter). I also happen to think that insistence on occupying the grammatical high ground can be made to serve as a distraction from the issue. If problems with grammar are serving to confuse things rather than making them more clear, hammering on grammar can be a legitimate part of the discussion. If not, it's simply changing the subject.
Posted by: Slartibartfast on May 24, 2005 06:49 AMNope, Bluto, has hit just about every hallmark of the internet lamer.
Posted by: Robin Roberts on May 24, 2005 07:26 AMThat's certainly the cliché, but proper usage is one thing that separates those who think clearly from those who don't.
Gee, is that a cliché?
Your errors seem to be tied to emotion, rather than educational deficiency, so that's a hopeful sign for you. You have the potential; you're just not working up to it.
No, not emotion either. I don't spend a great deal of time checking the spelling or grammar. I know it will be impossible for you to understand this, but I am only mistified at how one (that would be you) can comment on things one knows so little about.
For your reading material Bluto I suggest Ash, Poirier, and Laffont and Marimort.
If not, it's simply changing the subject.
Gasp
I'm shocked, Bluto changing the subject?
Posted by: Steve on May 24, 2005 07:39 AMI suppose Bluto has never heard of these people called "Editors", particularly those known as "Copy Editors". You see, Bluto, in the world of publication there are any number of people whose entire career is making sure that writers don't look like buffoons on the page. Funny thing about writers is that most of the schlock they churn out extemporaneously is utter garbage; crass, hackneyed dreck unfit to line a bird cage (much like your comments above). Editors, as you previously seem unaware, take this disorganized jumble of thought and make it readable. Copy Editors check for spelling and comma-splices. That Steve's greatest sin is the occasional misspelling or dangling participle is an Editor's dream. When I was an editor most of my best writers couldn't spell their way out of a paper bag, and had entire paragraphs [at least] which had to be rewritten. Having somebody with not only Steve's mental acuity, but also with his relatively good grasp of English would've been a godsend.
On the other hand, the sort of crap you've been churning out, well spelled as it is, wouldn't be published in a high school newsletter.
Posted by: Timothy on May 24, 2005 08:48 AMThis has been fun, but now I'll place all my cards on the table and explain to Steve and his hangers on what has occurred here.
I haven't changed the subject. The subject of the post and the thread is "Bluto", specifically, Steve's outrage at having anyone question his pronouncments. Had Steve's intent been merely to discuss the issue as he saw it (which could have easily been accomplished in the OTB comments section) he would not have mentioned me by name, nor provided a link to my site. But Steve chose to make me the issue, and the result is a post and comment thread that provide nothing but amusement.
It was my impression from his first reply at OTB that Steve is an individual afflicted with that desperate pomposity and concomitant humorlessness that stem, ultimately, from deep feelings of insecurity. This impression was reinforced by Steve's escalation of the feud and his increasingly churlish responses.
Since Steve was determined to have a temper tantrum anyway, why shouldn't I help him show more and more of his ass? Especially since he's providing multiple links to my site, where people can read things that actually matter; meanwhile I am providing no links to his site (much to Steve's apoplectic outrage).
So Br'er Steve, are you happy you threw me into that thar briar patch?
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto on May 24, 2005 01:12 PMThat's hilarious, Bluto. You are now claiming that you were just pretending to be a pompous ignorant blowhard to reveal that Steve was a pompous informed blowhard.
Ain't buying it. You have qualified as pure lamer.
Posted by: Robin Roberts on May 24, 2005 04:10 PMTempertantrum...LOL...not even close Bluto. You really must be a shrinking violet.
Posted by: Steve on May 24, 2005 08:31 PMWell, I'm not impressed by the behavoir of either one of you.
Yours,
Wince
