Monthly Archives: August 2009

Who pays for health care?

Posted on by

Very basic ideas that journalists, pundits and politicians often misunderstand…  There is no free lunch because: 1. Everybody is a consumer.  2. Sooner or later, consumers pay for “everything”.

Who Really Pays for Health Care?: The Myth of “Shared Responsibility”
Ezekiel J. Emanuel, MD, PhD (Department of Bioethics, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health); Victor R. Fuchs, PhD (Department of Economics, Stanford University). 
Journal of the American Medical Association. 2008; vol. 299: 1057-1059.

When asked who pays for health care in the United States, the usual answer is “employers, government, and individuals.” Most Americans believe that employers pay the bulk of workers’ premiums and that governments pay for Medicare, Medicaid, the State Children’sHealth Insurance Program (SCHIP), and other programs.

However, this is incorrect. Employers do not bear the cost of employment-based insurance; workers and households pay for health insurance through lower wages and higher prices. Moreover, government has no source of funds other than taxes or borrowing to pay for health care.

Failure to understand that individuals and households actually foot the entire health care bill perpetuates the idea that people can get great health benefits paid for by someone else. It leads to perverse and counterproductive ideas regarding health care reform.

This argument is also true in Mexico where the quality of IMSS/ISSSTE is so low that some employers resort to secondary or additional health care insurance from private providers.  If an employee ends up paying both the  public and private insurance premiums, the distortion on labor markets is even larger.  This is because public insurance (IMSS or ISSSTE fees) is mandatory in formal jobs: an employee cannot opt out of it if she chooses a secondary private option.

Special interests unite!

Posted on by

OpenSecrets.Org, also known as the Center for Responsive Politics, keeps track of the largest contributors to both the Republican or Democratic party.  These are the top 20 donors between 1989 and 2008.  Do note that this period includes Bush I and II, B illClinton as well as Obama’s election cycles.  The website includes lots of details by election year as well as by company. 

What I find remarkable is that the list is dominated by unions in this period.  Consider this the next time you hear claims that US democracy is captured by evil “corporate interests”.  Corporations, such as AT&T and Citibank, actually give as much to one party as the other, ie, they hedge their bets.  Unions, on the other hand, are lopsided toward the Democratic party. 

More details here.

 

1

 ORGANIZATION

AT&T Inc

 Total

$43,501,240

 %Dem

44%

 %Rep

55%

  
2 American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees $40,965,173 98% 1%   
3 National Assn of Realtors $35,179,013 48% 51%  
4 Goldman Sachs $31,183,662 64% 35%  
5 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $30,920,696 97% 2%   
6 American Assn for Justice $30,734,429 90% 9%   
7 National Education Assn $29,908,625 92% 6%   
8 Laborers Union $28,201,600 92% 7%   
9 Service Employees International Union $27,510,257 95% 3%   
10 Teamsters Union $27,402,304 92% 6%   
11 Carpenters & Joiners Union $27,368,258 89% 10%  
12 Communications Workers of America $26,748,746 99% 0%   
13 Citigroup Inc $26,562,905 50% 49%  
14 American Medical Assn $26,213,449 39% 60%  
15 American Federation of Teachers $25,996,071 98% 0%   
16 United Auto Workers $25,767,002 98% 0%   
17 Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union $24,793,477 98% 0%   
18 National Auto Dealers Assn $24,048,808 31% 68%  
19 Altria Group $23,869,891 28% 71%  
20 United Food & Commercial Workers Union $23,742,074 98% 1%   

Solicitud de Visa para Canadá

Posted on by

Como mucho sabrán, desde julio de este año el gobierno canadiense requiere que los mexicanos solicitemos visa (como turistas, estudiantes, etc.)  El website de la embajada canadiense provee la información necesaria en cuanto a los documentos que hay que presentar.  La solicitud es de suyo bastante engorrosa: Una parte se puede llenar en computadora pero el resto tiene que llenarse a mano (prepárense para declarar donde han vivido, trabajado o estudiado toda su vida, por ejemplo).

Pero hay dos trabucos más –el cheque de caja y la guía de envío prepagada– que no dependen tanto de la embajada y que pueden ser complicados para quienes vienen hasta la Ciudad de México solamente para hacer este trámite o quienes, como yo, no saben moverse muy bien en esta ciudad.  Si ya cuentan con todos los formatos y documentación necesaria para la aplicación, he aquí algunos tips para el día en que entreguen su solicitud:

  1. La embajada canadiense está en Schiller #529 y Tres Picos, entre Campos Eliseos y Reforma (justo detrás del Museo Nacional de Antropología), en Polanco.
  2. Hay un Banamex en Presidente Masaryk y Newton. El cheque de caja cuesta entre 180 y 240 pesos en ese banco, dependiendo de si eres cuentahabiente o no. En Masaryk están muchos otros bancos pero algunos, como Banorte, NO venden cheques de caja.  Otros, sólo los venden a “sus cuentahabientes”.
  3. La guía de envío prepagada se consigue fácilmente en DHL.  Hay un DHL en la calle de Taine, entre Homero y Horacio (es pequeño, pero bien que está allí).  Sobre Masaryk también están Estafeta y Multipack pero sorprendentemente ellos NO venden guías prepagadas (quizá no han descubierto que la embajada canadiense está allí a la vuelta mandando clientes a DHL).
  4. De plano, si necesitan fotocopias o fotos tamaño pasaporte de último minuto, busquen sobre Horacio, cerca del Metro Polanco.

Todo esto está a distancia caminable una vez que se encuentran en Polanco. He aquí un mapita con las coordenadas principales (está es la liga de google maps si desean un mayor detalle):

Embajada Canadiense en México

Hoy intenté solicitar mi visa, pero descubrir todo lo anterior me llevó más de 2 horas y no llegué a tiempo a la embajada.  Luego de hacer rabietas sobre los costos de toda esta odiosa transacción se me ocurrió hacer este “pequeño servicio a la comunidad”. De nada. 

UPDATE: Tan sólo una semana después de entregar mis papeles, la visa llegó a mi casa :-).

You could file this entry under “transaction cost economics”: in a more efficient economy, there would be a DHL or Banamex stand right there on the embassy charging premium prices for the added convenience.  In a more efficient political system, the Canadian Embassy would have figured out a simpler way for visa applicants–how about ONE single pdf form, or longer service hours?–so that Mexican tourism would not fall as much as it will now.

Big pharma

Posted on by

This is from Robert Reich blog:

I’m a strong supporter of universal health insurance, and a fan of the Obama administration. But I’m appalled by the deal the White House has made with the pharmaceutical industry’s lobbying arm to buy their support (…) Sunday’s New York Times reports that Big Pharma has budgeted $150 million for TV ads promoting universal health insurance, starting this August (that’s more money than John McCain spent on TV advertising in last year’s presidential campaign), after having already spent a bundle through advocacy groups like Healthy Economies Now and Families USA.

No, this not a Republican/Fox News kind of source.  Reich was secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He also served on President-Elect Obama’s transition advisory board…  IMHO, this proves that not all Democrats are on board with Obama–and that special interest politics is alive and well in the USA.

Statistics are sexy!

Posted on by

This is from The New York Times (August 6, 2009):

For Today’s Graduate, Just One Word: Statistics

MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. — At Harvard, Carrie Grimes majored in anthropology and archaeology and ventured to places like Honduras, where she studied Mayan settlement patterns by mapping where artifacts were found. But she was drawn to what she calls “all the computer and math stuff” that was part of the job.

“People think of field archaeology as Indiana Jones, but much of what you really do is data analysis,” she said. Now Ms. Grimes does a different kind of digging. She works at Google, where she uses statistical analysis of mounds of data to come up with ways to improve its search engine. Ms. Grimes is an Internet-age statistician, one of many who are changing the image of the profession as a place for dronish number nerds. They are finding themselves increasingly in demand — and even cool.

“I keep saying that the sexy job in the next 10 years will be statisticians,” said Hal Varian, chief economist at Google. “And I’m not kidding.”

The rising stature of statisticians, who can earn $125,000 at top companies in their first year after getting a doctorate, is a byproduct of the recent explosion of digital data. In field after field, computing and the Web are creating new realms of data to explore — sensor signals, surveillance tapes, social network chatter, public records and more. And the digital data surge only promises to accelerate, rising fivefold by 2012, according to a projection by IDC, a research firm.”

Also related, a blog confession by Peter R. Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget:

The President has made it very clear that policy decisions should be driven by evidence – accentuating the role of Federal statistics as a resource for policymakers.  Robust, unbiased data are the first step toward addressing our long-term economic needs and key policy priorities.

In my speech this morning, I noted two particular areas where more and better data would be useful: health care and education.  In health care, bending the curve on cost growth will require more information about how we’re spending our health dollars, the health outcomes we’re producing, and how specific interventions rank against alternative treatments.  In education, better longitudinal data on the progress of individual students, which can be linked to specific programs and teachers, will go a long way to helping us understand what works better – and what doesn’t — and as a result, where to target scarce resources to bolster student achievement.

Elección 2009: resultados MR por género

Posted on by

Estos son los resultados de las elecciones 2009 en México en distritos uninominales o de mayoría relativa, distinguiendo entre candidatos y candidatas ganadores de cada partido. 

Resultados 2009 en distritos de mayoría relativa por género

Resultados 2009 en distritos de mayoría relativa por género

Cada punto en esta gráfica ilustra el porcentaje de votos de PAN, PRI y PRD en un distrito de mayoría relativa (los porcentajes de voto están normalizados para que su suma sea igual a 100).  Para entender la escala, nótese que los bastiones del PAN están en la parte superior del triángulo, los del PRI en el lado inferior derecho, y los del PRD en el izquierdo. Así, un distrito en el “centro” del triángulo indica un distrito reñido entre los tres principales partidos.  El color de cada punto indica el partido que ganó en ese distrito.

Más datos aquí.  Los resultados por representación proporcional están aquí.

Nota: Estos resultados forman parte del proyecto de investigación (en proceso): “Evaluación de la perspectiva de género en plataformas de partidos políticos, candidaturas y cargos de elección 2009“, financiado por el Instituto Nacional de las Mujeres.