Bill Murray Party Crashing Tour 2012-2013

Bill Murray Party Crashing Tour 2012-2013

Yes, that title is actually thing. Bill Murray spokesperson announced that he will be going on a party crashing tour. 

Amherst, I am going to be so pissed at you if you don't make this happen. So, you all better start making one beautiful effin banner for your parties. You know that Bill Murray knows about our reputation. Every party should have a banner. A huge banner. I need to live vicariously through you. I want to see cell phone videos of Bill singing Call Me Maybe. Scratch that... I'd be insulted by that. I want to see a video of Bill singing something/anything other than Call Me Maybe. 

Oh and UMass Outing Club, I'm looking at you to make this happen. Out of any UMass Organization, I have the most faith in you guys being able to mobilize your talents to make that happen.
One Last Thing: Don't crows the Man's space.

Picture 1: Party with this man.

Picture 2: You can do better than this.

The Supreme Court Upholds the Affordable Health Care Act, A Counterpoint

I have only recently found the time to properly respond to Paige P.'s recent post published here at Boomtown Review, and I wanted to take the time to give my own comments on her claims, and offer a few facts on the Affordable Care Act.



First we start with a very, ah, bold assertion about the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act;

What I see is when the side that believes the mandate is constitutional, they believe that the entire bill is constitutional, and in my opinion, it is not. No, I do not believe that the government should be able to "technically" force healthcare on any citizen, but the truth is we have millions of Americans that do not have coverage. (emphasis mine - JMG)

I respect and cherish differences of opinion, but this is getting tiresome. The Affordable Care Act as run the gauntlet of the American judicial system, and has consistently been upheld as constitutional; the latest being none other than the highest ranking justice on the nation's Supreme Court. The time to litigate the ACA's constitutionality has expired—finally—now after over two full years after it was signed into law.



Next, the author makes a kind of confused assertion about the mechanics of the bill:

Unfortunately, the "affordable" part of this pitch lies on the backs of the Americans that currently have health insurance. (emphasis mine - JMG)

I am sorry if I lose my composure a bit, but this is just silly. The only credible reason one can make the claim that the Affordable Care Act is built on "the backs of Americans that currently have health insurance" is because our entire health healthcare system is built up on the backs of the insured. That's how American heath healthcare works! If you don't have insurance, there are very few options available if you need any kind of preventative care, aside from being so destitute that you qualify for your state's Medicaid program.



There's a lot of talk in conservative circles about how 'you can always go to an emergency room,' which is a really awful health policy plan —from both a public health and fiscal health perspective. It's quite bad for the hospital, which has to inflate it's billing prices across the board to cover the uncompensated cost of emergency room care; and it's terrible for the patients who have chronic issues, yet can't access preventative care. By almost every metric, US health outcomes are really bad; we spend more money on healthcare goods and services than any other nation on the globe, both per capita and as percentage of GDP, but our public health outcomes are mediocre, which is underscored by the fact that nations who spend far less money consistently have better public health outcomes. As the Commonwealth Fund bluntly states "The U.S. health system is the most expensive in the world, but comparative analyses consistently show the United States underperforms relative to other countries on most dimensions of performance."



Conversely, Paige brings up some interesting, if somewhat muddled point about the ACA's 'Cadillac-plan' tax provision. Pagie's explains that

For those of you that do not know what this [Cadillac-tax] is, it is a provision that adds an additional tax on healthcare plans that exceed a certain dollar threshold for individual care and family care. The theory behind this is that companies will work harder to find better deals for their employees, a bunch of garbage if you ask me.

I wanted to make two points on this; first, I am not sure how market forces could be characterized as a "bunch of garbage." Cost sensitivity is one of the most important elements of consumer behavior, and lack of cost-sensitivity is one of the major problems with the Unites States' health insurance market. Next, provisions like the 'Cadillac-tax' are sadly necessary because how how entrenched the dysfunctional elements of American health care has become. As Matthew Yglesias explains:

[...] the key thing about it is that the definition of what counts as a "Cadillac" plan is pegged to the overall rate of Consumer Price Index inflation. That means that over time more and more plans will be subject to the excise tax, offsetting the impact of the deduction for employer-provided plans. They put this in the bill to get something the CBO would score as reducing system-wide health expenditures, and the CBO scores it that way because they think it's equivalent to phasing out the deduction.

Yglesias continues:

Saying you think Obamacare's increase in taxation of investment income should be rolled back and replaced with more aggressive implementation of the excise tax is a far cry from positing a deep-seated philosophical disagreement with the overall approach. At some point, everyone had to look at the overall legislative package and decide if they were "for" or "against" it, and ever since that moment the debate about the specific elements of the progam has gotten extremely fuzzy and overly polarized.

Lastly, I wanted to bring up a more general point about the Affordable Care Act and how Paige characterizes it. She closes her arguments against the Affordable Care Act by reviving the usual boogymen tropes about socialism:

There is a reason that the world's longest reigning communist dictator, Fidel Castro, applauded Obama for this system. Hitler, Lennon [sic], and Castro have all used socialized medicine as ways to subjugate their people.

This is really beyond pale for me. Actual socialists hate the Affordable Care Act. They (hyperbolically) allege the law that the bill is a 'huge giveaway' for the pharmaceutical industry. I find these kind of criticisms to be simplistic and reductive, not to mention completely ignorant of the fact that the Affordable Care Act is not an entitlement program. The ACA is an attempt to correct the market failures of the US’s current health insurance market, with specific provisions such as exchange market regulations, state-level grants and waivers, and a raft of other possible policy solutions to our rampant healthcare cost inflation trends.



The entire point of the Affordable Care Act is to bring everyone into the health insurance market, just like property taxes are designed to being everyone into the public education market, and gas taxes bring everyone into the public roads market. There's nothing 'socialistic' about that, beyond the general collective compromise one needs to make to live (healthily) in a mature industrialized democracy.

The Supreme Court Upholds the Affordable Health Care Act, Another Perspective

The Supreme Court Upholds the Affordable Health Care Act, Another Perspective

Author - Paige P.

It is my opinion that the entire vote on the Individual Mandate provision is just another way to disguise what the healthcare "reform", I use the term loosely because the word "reform" indicates an improvement, really is. This is what the general public thinks the entire healthcare bill is all about. I will get back to this point later. What I see is when the side that believes the mandate is constitutional, they believe that the entire bill is constitutional, and in my opinion, it is not. No, I do not believe that the government should be able to "technically" force healthcare on any citizen, but the truth is we have millions of Americans that do not have coverage. Unfortunately, the "affordable" part of this pitch lies on the backs of the Americans that currently have health insurance.

What I think the general public fails to read into is the way the individual mandate will affect the healthcare system as a whole. We will include millions, let's say 30 million as a rough estimate from reports, of people being added to the healthcare system, with no outlook to an increase of medical providers (doctors). Increasing demand and keeping supply the same will inevitably create a rationing of care and a decrease in availability of adequate (ambiguous term, yes) care. In short, what the majority of Americans have received for care will be no more. 

So, how do we expect to make healthcare affordable for the millions of Americans that cannot afford healthcare? This is where we have added provisions of the healthcare system such as the Cadillac tax (yes this is real). For those of you that do not know what this is, it is a provision that adds an additional tax on healthcare plans that exceed a certain dollar threshold for individual care and family care. The theory behind this is that companies will work harder to find better deals for their employees, a bunch of garbage if you ask me. It is a way to create "fair and equal" coverage and to help subsidize "affordable" care for these new additions to the system. Those that are covered under these Cadillac plans are being forced by the government to acquire less coverage or be penalized. But wait, there's more. Cadillac plans offered by unions are exempt from this tax. Now why would the government exempt the unions? Votes!! Union workers are generally democratic voters…

Now back to what I think this healthcare plan is about that is being disguised by the focus on the individual mandate… There are many many many provisions of this bill that are a complete and utter intrusion on Americans' freedom and lives. The bill includes several programs that require mandatory home visits from government personnel to inquire about your family. The goal is to learn more about parenting skills, child development, and the like. Now imagine what kind of questions might be asked by these government employees knocking on your door. "How much time do you spend with your children?" "what do you feed your children?" "do you have a gun in the house?". Whatever the questions may be, it doesn't matter, these programs are an invasion on Amendments 1-5. Someone entering your home without your permission (hey, it's mandatory)… asking you questions that could be used against you. What if you homeschool your children and the government decides they would be better suited for a government institution? 

There is a reason that the world's longest reigning communist dictator, Fidel Castro, applauded Obama for this system. Hitler, Lennon, and Castro have all used socialized medicine as ways to subjugate their people. Hitler created a euthanasia program for the aged and unable (euthanasia is addressed in Section 1553 of Obamacare). A decade later, his program create death camps. Now, I am not saying that this administration is headed in that direction, but why give them the power? 

The healthcare reform should be completed abolished in its entirety. Enough with focusing on the mandate, think beyond what the media tells you (this includes Foxnews as well). If we try to eliminate "parts" of the bill, it will be the same story as OSEA, where parts were removed, and yet, OSEA continued to grow and grow beyond its original proposal. 

And don't even get me started on the burdens that illegals put on our healthcare system...

2012 NBA Draft Review and Analysis

2012 NBA Draft Review and Analysis

Picture 1: Likely lottery draft picks prior to the draft.

Last night (06-28-12) at 7:30PM, the 2012 NBA Draft began with a chorus of boos for NBA commissioner David Stern. The commissioner seemed to drink it in and even egg on the crowd by mentioning the widely unpopular NBA Champion Miami Heat and pulling a Hulk Hogan-esque-hand-to-the-ear-I-can't-hear-you-power-move. I loved it. The draft started with the obvious but has some very interesting moves to review:

1. New Orleans Hornets - Anthony Davis

This pick was obvious. It has been discussed on sports radio, ESPN, newspapers, blogs and everywhere else; so, to be certain, there's little I can add here other than sending my kudos to the Hornets for not getting tricky and making the right move.

2. Charlotte Bobcats - Michael Kidd-Gilchrist

As a UMass Amherst alum, I've got to note that seeing the proud John Calipari made me a little sick.  I mean, I don't hold anything against Kentucky or the players, but Calipari up and left UMass when Marcus Camby got caught accepting some sort of benefits for being a start basketball player and our college program is JUST starting to claw it's way back into recognition after being blacklisted. Calipari just peaced out like he had nothing to do with it except he should have been the ultimate authority figure sniffing this stuff out. 

Back to the point, I have no problem with this pick. He looks like he could be a good player, but I think I would have tried to trade out of this slot if I were Charlotte and I needed as many offensive pieces as they do. Speaking of which, Kidd-Gilchrist is more of a defensive player.

3. Washington Wizards - Bradley Beal

I'm not high on this kid. But, for a bad a team, the Wizards aren't in the worst situation. They already have a budding young star in John Wall. If Bradley Beal works out, they could have a young, athletic, and big time scoring potential core.

4.Cleveland Cavaliers - Dion Waiters

According to some, Waiters is the 'most NBA ready player' in the draft. I read that as 'the Cavs and their fans are so distraught that Lebron left them and won a 'ship that they need a young, new player to look up to.' I don't blame them - it looks like Lebron is poised to collect some rings. Another thing worth noting: Cleveland traded up three picks, 24, 32 and 33, to receive the number 4 pick. Cleveland is in rebuilding mode. Is this one player really that sure of a thing?

5. Sacramento Kings - Thomas Robinson

I love this pick. Robinson has a lot of 'potential' but more importantly he's got real character. He's a man. The look in his face said to me "I'm thankful to be here, I'm going to work as hard as I can to provide for my Father and Sister." Also, the guy has a NBA read body. He's huge. Big and strong guys typically do well in the NBA if they know how to throw their weight around. Tyreke Evans might finally have something to smile about.

6. Portland Trailblazers - Damian Lillard

Apparently this guys moneyball stats are off the chart. Thanks Chris Broussard. Portland traded away Gerrald Wallace, Mehmet Okur, Shawne Williams and a pick to get this guy; so, they are both really high on him and trying to rebuild.

7.Golden State Warriors - Harrison Barnes

I like this kid. He can shoot. I think he's be effective right away and be one of the names you get used to hearing real quick. I project him to be a second tier type.

8. Toronto Raptors - Terrence Ross

Nice bow tie, bro.

9. Detroit Pistons - Andre Drummond

I love the tears. It gets me (YOU MADE IT BUDDY!). This guy fits the Pistons. Once he finishes crying he could be another one of the big, physical, mean guys in the paint.

10. New Orleans Hornets - Austin Rivers

Talk about hitting it big in the draft. A+ pick. They may have picked the two best players in the draft in Davis and Rivers. I'm a Celtics fan so I'm going to be naturally high on anyone with the last name Rivers.

11. Portland Trailblazers - Myers Leonard

OK, they finally admitted it. Greg Oden isn't going to pan out. Let's just hope this Myers Leonard fellah has good knees.

12. Houston Rocks - Jeremy Lamb

Houston receives this pick from the Milwaukee Bucks. One of the 32098320983 picks Houston had in thie draft to revamp roster.

13. Phoenix Suns - Kendall Marshall

14. Milwaukee Bucks - John Henson

15. Philadelphia 76ers - Maurice Harkless

He's was a freshman. I'm willing to bet you'll forget his name for a year while he develops and then he'll work his way into being a really effective NBA starter.

16. Houston Rockets - Royce Whits

UGHHHHH FFFUUUU-.... I hate you Houston. This was my guy. Does Kevin McHale hate Danny Ainge or something. Can we trade for him. Ugh. He's probably terrible anyhow.

17. Dallas Mavericks - Tyler Zeller

This pick was traded to the Cleveland Cavaliers. It's hilarious because this kid just LOOKS like he doesn't haven't a shot in the NBA; THEREFORE, he's a perfect fit in Cleveland (awwwww... that joke makes us all a little sad).

18. Houston Rockets - Terrence Jones

OK! OK! We get it! You're going to be awesome in 2 or 3 years. Give it a rest already. Jerks..... Can we PLEASE have Royce White?

19. Orlando Magic - Andrew Nicholson

Damn. That's my other guy. This kid has got some moves all over the court. For a big guy, he's going to Garnett-esque. He needs to bulk up, though.

20. Denver Nuggets - Evan Fournier

21. Boston Celtics - Jared Sullinger

Cue media outburst. I like this pick. I really hope he lives up to his potential and doesn't end up being the youngest old/injured guy on our team.

22. Boston Celtics - Fab Melo

Listen: this guy just has a name MADE to be successful. (Someone start printing the Melo is Fab-ulous shirts). He's 7 feet. He might have Garnett teaching him. And, he's got relatively young legs because he's new to basketball. We'll see what happens.

23. Atlanta Hawks - John Jenkins

Perimeter shooter, probably. But definitely the overpaid Hawks player of the future.

24. Cleveland Cavaliers - Jared Cunningham

This pick goes to Dallas in a trade

25. Memphis Grizzlies - Tony Wroten Jr. 

Decent value pick down this far.

26. Indiana Pacers - Miles Plumlee

27. Miami Heat - Arnett Moultrie

Traded to the 76ers. Hey, the 76ers could be building a really great team for the future. They're pretty much right where the Celtics want to be. Competitive, in the playoffs, young, athletic and set up for years to come.

28. Oklahoma City Thunder - Perry Jones III

Falling down this far in the draft he's a steal and a value pick for the Thunder. Heck, they're already set and they just made the Finals, might as well swing for the fences with this guy.

29. Chicago Bills - Marquis Teague

30. Golden State Warrios - Festus Ezeli

I refuse to believe a guy name Festus Ezeli is going to end up a dominant player in the NBA. I suppose stranger things have happened.

With free agency and the trade date approaching, it's going to be an interesting off season.

Science Discovers Why Women Always Win Arguments

Science Discovers Why Women Always Win Arguments

(Besides Being Right All the Time (I Must Not Displease Our Great Female Overlords))

In this article from Scientific American, Daisy Grewal explains a study conducted at a University in the Netherlands (doesn't that just make perfect sense?) where the researchers tested the cognitive performance of participants once before a task was assigned and once after a task was assigned.  As the task was assigned, participants were told that either a male or female would be watching them perform the task. In one trial, researchers had a webcam set up on participants and the task was actually performed. In the next trial, the second test was taken by participants before the task was even performed. 

Regardless, women participants showed no chance in cognition performance on the test based while men showed significantly WORSE results when they knew a woman would be watching:
"Once again, women’s performance on the test did not differ, regardless of whether they were expecting a man or woman to observe them. But men who had been told a woman would observe them ended up doing much worse on the second Stroop task. Thus, simply anticipating the opposite sex interaction was enough to interfere with men’s cognitive functioning."

Well, it looks like I've finally figured out why I can start a discussion with my girlfriend so sure that I'm right but always somehow end up a stuttering mess. Damn you Mother Nature!! Wait a second... Mother Nature... She's in on this! It's a conspiracy!

CNN is Terrible

A friend of mine caught a screen cap just before today's ruling

The Supreme Court Upholds the Affordable Care Act

The opinion is available here. The vote was 5-4, with Chief Justices John Roberts "deliver[ing] the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III–C, concluding that the individual mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause". Anthony Kennedy was a part of the dissent, along with Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito. Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog writes:

In Plain English: The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn't comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding.

I am quite taken by the fact that Roberts was the deciding vote of affirmation. A pet theory that was bouncing around on Intrade just before the ruling was that Justice Roberts would be, at the very least, cognizant of the historic nature of the ruling, and how it might influence historical evaluations of the Roberts Court. I think historical concerns or not, the Court has affirmed a quite clearly constitutional law, and today's ruling is a positive step towards keeping the United States on the right track to controlling healthcare costs and improving national heath outcomes.