SHAME ON VIRGINIA

So Far, ‘Affordable’ Health Care . . . Isn’t

When President Barack Obama (D) and the then-Democratic Congress gave us the widely-reviled ‘Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’ in March 2010, there was a lot of high-minded talk about all the great things it would do for us. If proponents were to be believed, the health care reform bill would have lowered the cost of health insurance for Americans, reduced the number of uninsured, and allowed for people satisfied with their health insurance to keep it as-is.

Perhaps it has had some benefit for the uninsured Americans who have since decided to obtain health insurance; becoming insured has gotten easier with new limitations on the consideration of preexisting conditions. But those of us who had the good sense to have health insurance in the first place haven’t been so lucky. My family’s health insurance premiums have skyrocketed nearly fifty percent since the ‘Affordable’ Care Act passed. Our co-pays have gone up for office visits and prescriptions, and our out-of-pocket maximums have gone up. We aren’t alone, though perhaps we got hit harder than the average insured American. Stories abound of companies cutting back on health benefits and reducing coverage options for employees. Premiums have been sharply rising across the board, far above the rate of inflation.

Why is this happening? In large part, the rate hikes and policy changes can be attributed to new requirements and uncertainties associated with the 2010 ‘Affordable’ Care Act. The law includes an absurd requirement that children be permitted on their parents’ plans well into adulthood, required coverage for previously optionally-covered procedures, tight restrictions on future premium increases, and over-the-top limitations on the consideration of preexisting conditions (allowing people to sign up for insurance only when they get sick, effectively gaming the system). These measures, combined with the overall uncertainty about how the act will affect the industry, have increased the operating costs of insurance companies and, surprise, they are passing those costs on to you and me. The primary effect of the ‘Affordable’ Care Act on those of us who were insured like responsible adults is that we now have to pay more to get the same health coverage we’ve had all along—which means we have less money for economy-boosting purchases, savings, investments, and even charitable donations.

Let me be perfectly clear: America’s uninsured are overwhelmingly uninsured because they have made a free-will decision to spend their money on other things, or because they have chosen not to avail themselves of their Medicare/Medicaid entitlements. That is their decision to make . . . and those individuals bear sole responsibility for it. It’s not my job to bail them out any more than it was my job to bail out General Motors or AIG. Over eighty-five percent of Americans have made the prudent decision to obtain health insurance for themselves and their families, and we shouldn’t be punishing them for making good choices.

What If SOPA/PIPA Passes?

A lot of people all across the Internet have been up in arms about the pernicious Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and its companion Protect IP Act (PIPA) bills working their ways through Congress—and with good reason. But as a web site operator, even of a dinky little blog like this one, these bills stand to effect me quite directly. I thought I would share with you what changes will probably have to happen across the Internet, and specifically at Off on a Tangent (and in my life) if these bills pass in their current forms.

Today, sites based primarily on user-generated content (e.g., YouTube) are protected by the ‘safe harbor’ provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Under these provisions, upon a report of infringing material the company must review and remove the content. The company itself, however, is immune from prosecution or punishment for the infringement of its users. SOPA/PIPA would override these protections, making YouTube liable for an infringing video uploaded by its users. To continue operating as it does today, YouTube would need to review every uploaded video (at great cost), move out of the U.S. (at great cost), or constantly risk being taken down entirely because of individual infringing videos. Facebook, Flickr, Picasa, Vimeo, and countless others would face a similar conundrum.

Internet hosting companies and cloud service providers faced with the specter of constant lawsuits, shutdowns, and harassment in the U.S. are likely to leave the country. The Save Hosting Coalition, an alliance of Internet hosting providers, says that if PIPA passes, “We risk an environment where the bar within the United States is re-set so that only extremely large companies can afford to be web hosting providers. And what few hosting providers remain if the Protect IP Act passes will see less U.S. based content to host as we risk all independent content moving overseas.”

Myrtle Beach Vacation Photos

Been busy since we got back from our Myrtle Beach vacation. We had a great time, got to hang out with some of my family, ate way too much food, played mini-golf, went to the aquarium, and more. I didn’t spend a lot of time taking pictures, but I did grab some on the beach and when we went to the aquarium. Enjoy!

The Ugliest Cars of the 2012 Model Year

This year’s list hasn’t seen much change from the last, a welcome shift from last year’s slew of new introductions. What few changes there have been to existing models have usually been inoffensive, and there have not been many new-for-2012 models introduced. The Kia Soul and Toyota Prius, while still ugly, have dropped off the list due to the introductions of the Mitsubishi i-MiEV and Mini Cooper Coupe.

The criteria for this list remains mostly basically the same as it has always been. I don’t include models that aren’t sold in the United States. I don’t include models that sell in low volume (and volume is defined completely subjectively). I don’t include exotic, military, or special-purpose vehicles (so no super-cars, tanks, or postal trucks). It’s based entirely on my personal opinion of what looks good and what doesn’t.

I encourage your comments—whether they be nominations of ugly cars I may have missed, or impassioned defenses of the ones I didn’t. Feel free to vent your buyer’s remorse here too, if you happen to have purchased one of these monstrosities ;-).

Creation and the Null Hypothesis

The scientific method is an iterative process of testing hypotheses. The default position on a subject is known as the null hypothesis, and new alternative hypotheses are posited and then tested to see if they better fit observations.

For example, it was once generally accepted by scientists and laymen alike that the Earth was flat. An alternative hypothesis was proposed that the Earth was actually [roughly] spherical and, through observation and testing, that alternative hypothesis supplanted the null hypothesis and showed it to be false. That’s how science works. If we had never been able to produce sufficient evidence and observation to falsify the null hypothesis that the Earth was flat, we would still believe it today.

This method has falsified many null hypotheses about our universe, including many that originated in the great world religions and many that just seem to be ‘common sense.’ The Judeo-Christian creation story, for example, has been pretty soundly falsified as a literal account (though that has no bearing on its value as a figurative or allegorical account). The common-sense assumption that time is a fixed constant has also been falsified, as we now understand (per the Theory of General Relativity) that time is relative and is subject to dilation and delay when affected by gravitational fields.

But there is one fundamental question—how was the universe created?—on which there is little or no observable evidence supporting any hypothesis. So on this topic, if we are to apply the scientific method in a proper and consistent way, the null hypothesis stands. Only when an alternative hypothesis is proposed and sufficient evidence and observation serves to falsify the null hypothesis can we ‘switch’ to an alternative.

Scott Bradford is a writer and technologist who has been putting his opinions online since 1995. He believes in three inviolable human rights: life, liberty, and property. He is a Catholic Christian who worships the trinitarian God described in the Nicene Creed. Scott is a husband, nerd, pet lover, and AMC/Jeep enthusiast with a B.S. degree in public administration from George Mason University.