Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Everybody saw this coming.

Every one of the “Roberts Six” lied to get on the court.

Let the trolls come, and then ignore them. that’s the worst thing you can do to a troll.

Pessimism assures that nothing of any importance will change.

Second rate reporter says what?

You passed on an opportunity to be offended? What are you even doing here?

Republicans: slavery is when you own me. freedom is when I own you.

The Giant Orange Man Baby is having a bad day.

Democracy cannot function without a free press.

Accused of treason; bitches about the ratings. I am in awe.

It’s a good piece. click on over. but then come back!!

You cannot love your country only when you win.

At some point, the ability to learn is a factor of character, not IQ.

“I was told there would be no fact checking.”

The republican caucus is covering themselves with something, and it’s not glory.

Republicans want to make it harder to vote and easier for them to cheat.

If you cannot answer whether trump lost the 2020 election, you are unfit for office.

How any woman could possibly vote for this smug smarmy piece of misogynistic crap is beyond understanding.

This really is a full service blog.

The republican speaker is a slippery little devil.

Republicans are the party of chaos and catastrophe.

Of course you can have champagne before noon. That’s why orange juice was invented.

Optimism opens the door to great things.

The arc of the moral universe doesn’t bend itself. it’s up to us.

You are here: Home / 2016 / Archives for March 2016

Archives for March 2016

Thoughts on SeaWorld and Orca Liberation

by | 124 Comments

This post is in: ,

First, a confession: I was once on ShamuVision, the big screen overlooking the tank where SeaWorld’s orca Shamu did his (or her—see below) tricks. I can even remember the question I guessed right: whether Shamu gets his power from the downstroke or upstroke of his big tail. (Downstroke, which is why, when he surfaces, his tail is curved down.)

shamu
Look how much fun he’s having!

There were thousands of people in that audience, so it was cool that the camera landed on me, and also cool that I got a tough-ish question right. (Not like those softballs the little kids got. “Is Shamu black-on-white or white-on-black?” C’mon!)

But here’s what I didn’t know at the time: ”Shamu” was a sham. SeaWorld basically stuck the name on a series of orcas at the San Diego and other parks, encouraging the public to think that each park housed one long-lived and presumably happy orca, instead of many short-lived and presumably miserable ones. And I, and many others, bought into it.

Here’s what else I didn’t know at the time:

  • Captive orcas live, on average, a fraction of their natural lifespans. Many die of some combination of disease and stress, after having lived their entire lives in solitary or near-solitary confinement in the orca equivalent of a bathtub. [Edited b/c many captives, tho not all, do have some companionship.]
  • Some captive orcas wear their teeth out from constant stress-chewing on their enclosures.
  • Some are fed antidepressants.

I also didn’t know that SeaWorld trainers masturbated (yup) male orcas and harvested their semen, which they used to impregnate females so that SeaWorld could exhibit the resulting calves. (You can see this in the documentary Blackfish, and yeah it’s gross. But a lot of animal exploitation centers on similar reproductive grossness.)

Finally, I didn’t know that some orcas attack the humans they supposedly enjoy working with. The original Shamu was “retired” after she attacked a SeaWorld employee, and numerous other incidents followed. This fact was blown out into the open in 2010, when the orca Tilikum attacked and killed trainer Dawn Brancheau. It was the third death that that particular orca had caused.

tilikum home
Tilikum’s “home” between shows (in the red circle). Yeah, it’s a bathtub.

In hindsight, it seems the height of delusion to think that a human could swim safely in a tank with a 12,000 pound predator—especially one who’s known so much trauma and abuse at the hands of humans. But when an OSHA investigation after Brancheau’s death concluded that SeaWorld was an unsafe work environment, SeaWorld appealed. (Organizations that abuse animals typically not being all that concerned with the safety and welfare of humans, either—and, btw, SeaWorld’s lawyer was Eugene Scalia, son of the late and unlamented Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Nice family.) SeaWorld lost the appeal.

In any case, soon this will all be moot. Recently, after decades of protests and other activism, SeaWorld announced that it will be phasing out its orca theatrical shows and also captive breeding of orcas. This is a huge victory for animal activists, and the frosting on the cake is that SeaWorld will also be adding vegan and humane options to its menu.

Of course it’s not a total victory: it’s too late for poor Tilikum, whose death is imminent, and whose life has been a tragedy from start to finish. And SeaWorld’s other orcas will remain in captivity (and, presumably, performing) even though cetacean experts want them retired to coastal sanctuaries. (They can’t be released into the wild because they wouldn’t have the skills to survive.) And there are still other orcas trapped in other parks, and other species also requiring liberation. But I know my animal activists: they’re indefatigable and won’t stop till every cage is empty.

I predict that, in the not-too-distance future, SeaWorld will be presenting IMAX Shamu attractions, and maybe soon after that, virtual reality shows where you can watch Shamu up close, swim with Shamu, and maybe even be Shamu. (This is pure speculation by the way—I have no special knowledge. What’s your guess?) And I have a feeling these shows will be incredibly more interesting and educational than watching a coerced orca swim in circles around a tank.

And the orcas themselves will finally be left in peace.

happy orca

Thoughts on SeaWorld and Orca LiberationPost + Comments (124)

Solidarity on the field

by | 55 Comments

This post is in: ,

Some interesting sports/labor news from SI:

In the latest labor salvo between the World Cup-winning U.S. women’s national team players and the U.S. Soccer Federation, the five most prominent members of the USWNT have filed an action with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (a government agency) accusing U.S. Soccer of wage discrimination in relation to the money the federation pays to the U.S. men’s national team.

In a press release announced Thursday morning, lawyers for the five U.S. players—Carli Lloyd, Alex Morgan, Hope Solo, Megan Rapinoe and Becky Sauerbrunn—argue that the USWNT is paid almost four times less than the USMNT, despite producing nearly $20 million in revenues for U.S. Soccer in 2015 (per U.S. Soccer’s recently released annual financial report).

….”you have a situation where not only are their work requirements identical to the men’s requirements—the same number of minimum friendlies they have to play, the same requirements to prepare for their World Cups—but they have outperformed the men both economically and on the playing field in every possible way the last two years. So this isn’t a case where someone can come in and say the reason the men are paid more is because they are more economically successful or the men outperform the women or they’re not comparable in the same way….”

 

Equal pay for equal work, and better pay for better work should be a core value. And right now the US Women’s National Team is doing much better work than the men. They should get paid, especially as they are subsidizing the men.

Solidarity on the fieldPost + Comments (55)

ACA health status is a big deal

by | 33 Comments

This post is in: 

I like Kevin Drum but he is getting this wrong:

It’s true that Obamacare enrollees tended to be sicker than pre-Obamacareindividual enrollees. But that’s not because Obamacare enrollees are especially sick. In fact, they’re nearly identical to people enrolled through employer plans, which take all comers and therefore come pretty close to representing the average patient in America….

the BCBS report concludes that Obamacare enrollees used more medical services and ran up higher bills compared to those in employer plans. That’s a little hard to make sense of, since Obamacare enrollees are no sicker than average andgenerally have higher deductibles and copays than people in employer plans, which should motivate them to use fewer medical services.

Here is the actual Blue Cross and Blue Shield methodology:

The data in this report include approximately 4.7 million individual members and approximately 25 million employer-based group members and focuses on members ages 21 through 64. The impact of the federal risk adjustment program for the individual market is not reflected in this report. The charts report statistics calculated with the first nine months of claims data for each year because the medical claims for the fourth quarter of 2015 were not available at the time of publication. Using only the first nine months of data for both years ensures comparability. Data on medical spending are reported in terms of “allowed” medical costs [my emphasis]

The first problem with Kevin’s analysis is that BCBS dealt with the cost sharing problem by looking at the maximum contract rate for the service before any member cost sharing was applied. Secondly, Andrew Sprung at Xpostfactoid is pointing out that ACA Exchange policies look a lot like ESI policies in terms of cost sharing:

The average AV for a HealthCare.gov enrollee is just a point below that of a gold plan (80% AV). And this estimate may be conservative, since, again, CSR takeup is higher at lower income levels. Only 17% of silver plan buyers on the federal exchange ended up with the 70% AV often cited without qualification as the value for silver.

Average employer sponsored insurance (ESI) has about 80% actuarial coverage. There is minimal difference in terms of average cost sharing and induced demand.

More importantly, the differences that Kevin is poo-pooing as minor and insignificant are very significant:

Here is the percentage differences of utilization and disease categories in the report:

ESI QHP

Speaking as an insurance professional who can’t run stats on my smart phone while I am on the bus this morning, an eyeball test is telling me that over millions of covered lives, differences of 10% of utilization for outpatient and medical professional claims is operationally significant.  Inpatient (the most expensive part of the entire medical system) is up almost 40% for the Qualified Health Plan (QHP) individual market cohort compared to the ESI group.  Speaking as someone who does this for a living, we celebrate as a major success when an initiative drives down inpatient spend and utilization by 2%.  40% differential is massive.

The people who are new to the individual market are sicker and higher utilizers on average than people who get coverage through an employer group.  This makes sense for two reasons.  The first is that linking insurance to employment and usually full time or near full time employment is a screen for health.  If someone is sick with diabetes, depression and coronary artery disease, they are less likely to be working 30 hours per week than an healthy individual of the same age who lives next door to them.  Secondly, the people who were new to the individual market and not in the group market were more likely to have not been insured in the months leading up to their enrollment in the individual market.  We know that gaps in care lead to higher net expenses for people with chronic conditions.  So the story makes sense to me.

I agree with Kevin that this study is showing that the ACA is doing what it should be doing; getting people who need medical care access to medical care.  But dismissing clear evidence that there is a significant initial difference in population health is lazy and wrong.

 

ACA health status is a big dealPost + Comments (33)

Late Night Open Thread: So Unlike the Comity of Our Own Democratic Gatherings…

by | 109 Comments

This post is in: , , , ,

As discussed in a fascinating little T.A. Frank post in Vanity Fair:

… Because Ryan is so beloved by many inside the Beltway, some are suggesting that he parachute into a contested Republican convention—one in which Donald Trump fails to win the 1,237 delegates required on the first vote—and become the party’s nominee. “If we don’t have a nominee who can win on the first ballot, I’m for none of the above,” said Ryan’s predecessor, former House Speaker John Boehner, a couple of weeks ago. “I’m for Paul Ryan to be our nominee.” Sure, Americans seem to be flirting with populism, but maybe what they really want deep down is upper-income tax cuts, Social Security private accounts, and more immigration? Add to that Ryan’s patented smile-frown of humble empathy, and he handily beats Hillary Clinton. It all makes sense…

…[A]t the convention, both the first and second ballots would have to flame out. If Trump failed to get a majority on the first ballot, that would free up only about 57 percent of the delegates, meaning 43 percent would still be committed to a candidate. The second round of voting would therefore still favor Trump or Cruz, both of whom would have also promised supporters wonderful things, and maybe, in Trump’s case, even cash, which, according to Bloomberg‘s Sasha Issenberg, is not illegal.

Things would therefore have to go to a third round, and any defection to Ryan would have to contend with howls of protest not just from Trump, Cruz, and John Kasich, but also from a huge chorus within the Republican establishment, including Senator Lindsey Graham, who has denounced those who “want to drop in their favorite candidate and then try to stifle the will of the people.” In sum, securing a Ryan nomination would be a costly challenge for even a cunning and brilliant establishment, let alone a bumbling and dimwitted one…

That Bloomberg post, “How to Steal a Nomination From Donald Trump”, is a fascinating read as well. But here’s the relevant quote regarding offering cash to delegates:

… There is nothing in the RNC’s rules that prohibits delegates from cutting a deal for their votes, and lawyers say it is unlikely that federal anti-corruption laws would apply to convention horse-trading. (It is not clear that even explicitly selling one’s vote for cash would be illegal.) To lure a governor, for example, the offer of a Cabinet post could be necessary, while a delegate may be swayed by a job as regional HUD administrator or a seat on the Postal Regulatory Commission. A crucial vote on a procedural question could be ensured with a state party’s website-design contract to a delegate’s cousin’s firm.

But why waste an ambassadorship on someone who could be bought for far less? Every delegate and alternate is already paying for individual travel costs to get to Cleveland. Most state parties tell delegates to expect to spend $3,000 out of pocket on airfare, hotel and meals, and for some it could prove an unexpected hardship. (Delegates are assigned hotels by state; some could end up paying for the La Quinta Inn, others stuck with a bill from the Ritz-Carlton.) As blogger Chris Ladd has noted, Trump’s slate in Illinois contains “a food service manager from a juvenile detention center, a daycare worker from a Christian School, an unemployed paralegal, a grocery store warehouse manager, one brave advocate for urban chicken farming, a dog breeder, and a guy who runs a bait shop.” Could some of them be tempted to flip their votes if a generous campaign, super-PAC, or individual donor picked up the costs of their week in Cleveland? Far-flung territories that are treated as states under RNC rules offer even richer opportunities for geographical arbitrage. Round-trip flights in July to Cleveland from the Northern Mariana Islands, which nine delegates are unbound after the first ballot, already cost more than $2,000 each…

Probably just as well that our convention in Philadelphia takes place the week after the RNC gathering in Cleveland — sounds like the Media Village Idiots will still be in recovery!

Late Night Open Thread: So Unlike the Comity of Our Own Democratic Gatherings…Post + Comments (109)

Open Thread: Interview with Barney (Still) Frank

by | 94 Comments

This post is in: , , ,

You wanna see cranky, kiddies? Isaac Chotiner, at Slate, checks in with a notorious Jewish Congressional gadfly:

Isaac Chotiner: What do you make of Bernie Sanders’ success thus far, even if he is likely to come up short in terms of delegates?

Barney Frank: Remember he’s way behind not just in delegates but in votes.

Yeah I know, but still—

It’s ironic that we complain about voter suppression and shortened voting times and then we have so many caucuses. The caucuses are the least democratic political operation in America. They cater to the people who have a lot of time on their hands, and what’s interesting is Sanders is the nominee of the caucuses and Hillary is the nominee of the primaries.

I am disappointed by the voters who say, “OK I’m just going to show you how angry I am!” And I’m particularly unimpressed with people who sat out the Congressional elections of 2010 and 2014 and then are angry at Democrats because we haven’t been able to produce public policies they like. They contributed to the public policy problems and now they are blaming other people for their own failure to vote, and then it’s like, “Oh look at this terrible system,” but it was their voting behavior that brought it about.

So it seems like you’re saying Bernie’s voters have a slightly unrealistic sense about the political process. And that this is driven—

I didn’t say slightly.

OK.

Bernie Sanders has been in Congress for 25 years with little to show for it in terms of his accomplishments and that’s because of the role he stakes out. It is harder to get things done in the American political system than a lot of people realize, and what happens is they blame the people in office for the system. And that’s the same with the Tea Party. It’s “I voted for these Republicans, we have a Republican Congress, we voted for them, they took over Congress, they didn’t accomplish anything.” You gotta win at least two elections in a row.

How do you think Dodd-Frank is working?

Very well. I think Steve Eisman, who is the Steve Carell character in The Big Short, and one of the heroes of this issue, had a very good article a couple weeks ago talking about how well things are working…

Before anyone decides to fling a hissy-fit, you should read the whole thing, it ain’t long.

Open Thread: Interview with Barney (Still) FrankPost + Comments (94)