Tyler Cowen wonders why health care sucks:

It remains a mystery, why private health insurance has performed badly in holding down costs. Companies compete fiercely to shed costly patients but they do less to invest in reputations for reliability and trustworthiness. Similarly, it is a puzzle why HMOs don’t do more to invest in good reputations; lately Kaiser has moved in this direction.

All of this, I suspect, can be traced directly to the disconnect between health care consumption and health care customers; employers contract with health care plans as a fringe benefit for their employees (which Cowen has noted before), but they have no real incentive to make sure the health insurance is good (although there certainly is an incentive to make its cost as low as possible), except to the extent that a good health insurance plan can attract new employees; but, once employed, few people change jobs solely because their health insurance sucks (and nobody in a cartelized labor market, like academe, does so), so there’s little incentive to improve health care coverage.

It seems to me the sensible course forward is to couple HSAs with incentives for employers to provide a health insurance purchasing account (in lieu of employer contributions), which employees could use to purchase a health insurance plan in a competitive market. This would align the customer-consumer interest much better than the present system.

Reason’s Tim Cavanaugh helpfully rounds up all the vote fraud allegations in one place, while Slashdot’s CmdrTaco continues to parody DemocraticUnderground. (Oh, you mean he’s serious? Never mind.)

I’ll just join the bandwagon by complaining that I had to stand in line for 30 minutes in a fire station that was open to the elements at both ends to cast my votes, zero of which turned out to be pivotal. I blame Diebold; they had nothing to do with the electronic voting machines in Hinds County, but I think they’re vicariously to blame somehow anyway.

Hugh Hewitt thinks the Bainbridge-Corner campaign to push Arlen Specter out of the judiciary chairmanship is a really bad idea. Perhaps if they won’t listen to me or Hei Lun of BTD, maybe they’ll listen to him (þ: Glenn Reynolds).

Update: Ok, so much for that idea. These guys at NRO really don’t get it, do they? Meanwhile, James Dobson has joined the pile-on (þ: How Appealing), while Michael Totten is unimpressed to say the least.

I tend to agree with James Joyner and John Cole that putting creationism in the public school curriculum on-par with evolution is a thoroughly dopey idea.

That said, Jim Lindgren points out that the textbook on evolution in question at the Scopes trial was a load of racist, eugenicist trash—the sort of stuff that’s fortunately marginalized (though perhaps not marginalized enough in Hart’s case) in today’s society.

Bad news for my co-blogger as my employer’s football team beats his alma mater’s, 28–19. Congratulations to the Millsaps Majors (4–4, 3–2) on getting back to .500 after two consecutive road wins, heading into next Saturday’s final game against #6 Trinity (8–1, 5–0).

Philip Klinkner manages to present in a four-line table what takes Andrew Sullivan’s anonymized correspondent a paragraph and a bunch of raw numbers.

Both, incidentally, show that the anti-same-sex marriage initiatives had no effect on Bush’s share of the vote in the states where they were on the ballot.

Contrary to popular wisdom, Andrea Moro says the final exit polls were accurate and has the numbers to prove it. However, that doesn’t quite explain how the networks nearly blew the calls based on the Kerry-leaning numbers they had—and, once you have the final results, it’s easy enough to go back and reweigh the data to match the “true” results; I’d be curious if anyone has hardcopy of the exit poll results, including the weights, dating from before the returns came in.

Apparently Tuesday’s whopping 3% landslide win for George Bush has gone straight to Stephen Bainbridge’s head. Not content just to insult libertarians, he’s decided to make Arlen Specter his personal whipping boy, apparently under the delusion that Specter would take being deprived of his (rightful, under Senate seniority traditions) chairmanship of the judiciary committee any way other than defecting to the Democrats, and probably taking the majority with him—Lincoln Chafee has already made noises about leaving the GOP caucus, and shunting Specter aside would be the handwriting on the wall for folks like Judd Gregg, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and John McCain that the “big tent” is shrinking. If you think Judiciary is hard to get conservative judges through now, just wait until Pat Leahy or Ted Kennedy is running the show.

Joe Gandelman has more realistic thoughts on what’s likely to happen, while the quotes in Friday’s New York Times suggest Specter is unlikely to be pushed aside.

Update: Todd Zywicki apparently also doesn’t get that Specter won’t be the only Republican to defect if he doesn’t get the chairmanship. And citing a vote against Bork—given Bork’s increasing Gore-esque nuttiness over the past few years—doesn’t quite make a particuarly convincing case that a Democrat-led Senate is worth standing on some bogus principle of undying party loyalty.

Russell Fox has a lengthy post on the meaning of the election for Democrats and their uneasy relationship with religion, which starts off rather poorly—anyone who writes ”[t]he great egalitarian accomplishments of the last fifty years… are all on the chopping block” is at the very least engaging in hyperbole—but makes some important points about “red state” voters (regardless of how I hate that term and the false dichotomy underlying it) that Democrats have lost their ability to reach out to.

I think, for what it’s worth, that John Edwards (or possibly Dick Gephardt) could have reached out to a lot of poor and middle-class white southern voters, but the one-two elitist punch of John and Teresa Heinz Kerry undermined any realistic chance of that happening. More to the point, one has to wonder about a national Democratic Party that can’t even secure the paltry share of the white vote in a state like Mississippi it would need to be competitive, but it’s unlikely to see an improvement until the party gets over its Dean-esque arrogance that Southerners need to stop voting on “guns, God, and gays” and come to the conclusion that they need to respect (even if it’s only to the point of respectful disagreement) those Americans who care deeply about those things.

Michael Munger argues that Duke’s Phillip Kurian is the poster child for some deeper problems in the academy:

More and more, faculty on the left just want students to have the “correct” conclusions, like a memorized catechism, instead of making sure the students can defend those conclusions in a debate. And students on the left are the ones who pay the price.

Mind you, I just spent a far larger proportion of my teaching day than I wanted on my soapbox, so perhaps I’m part of the problem, even though I make a very poor leftist.

I think the biggest news out of yesterday’s presidential election, at least for scholars of voting behavior, was the third consecutive meltdown by the national opinion polling service (previously Voter News Service, now Edison/Mitofsky).

What went wrong? Megan McArdle ponders, while the Mystery Pollster explains the process. My gut feeling is that the system in part failed because the networks replaced VNS; Edison/Mitofsky was new at this, and a rookie effort is fraught with perils—as I learned myself yesterday. Coupled, perhaps, with a small cognitive bias on the part of the people being paid by Edison/Mitofsky to conduct the poll themselves (one suspects the typical person looking for day-work isn’t a Republican) and you can easily see why they were quite a bit off, notwithstanding the advertised margin of error.

I previously promised a pair of non-endorsements; however, no doubt to the relief of OF Jay, even though I have a partially-drafted post that I’ve been kicking around for a week, I really don’t think there’s much point in posting it.

However, I will leave you with the general flavor of the piece, which basically was just a long-winded version of this statement by Alex Knapp: “in all perfect honesty, I wouldn’t trust George Bush or John Kerry to run a f**king McDonald’s, much less the executive branch… of the United States government.”

Apologies for the relative silence as of late; I am running a big project that comes to fruition tomorrow, and that has me rather busy (to say the least). I’ll have something more to say later today, probably.

In the meantime, scroll down and read Brock’s posts from the weekend, on such diverse topics as beer, bigots, and the Beatles.

Tonight I’m going to a Halloween party as the great Stupid White Man himself, complete with blazer, badly home-made “no-GM” T-shirt, a “Proud to be a Democrat” baseball cap I picked up for $5 at Wal-Mart last night, and a vague attempt at simulating Moore’s permanent bad facial hair day, based on two days’ growth of beard and lots of little hair clippings from my electric razor.

Like Sebastian Holdsclaw, I was pretty well convinced that Osama was worm food. I guess that’s what they mean by an “October surprise.” Damned if I know what it means, or how it will play into things on Tuesday. (I guess it’s possible Osama made several tapes with different Democratic opponents, so I wouldn’t call it completely dispositive on his survival into recent months, mind you. But Occam’s Razor suggests that, if it was Memorex, he’d have made some vague reference to a Democratic challenger instead of making multiple tapes.)

Henry Farrell unearths a tongue-in-cheek article from PS, and hilarity—at least for political science geeks—ensues (þ: Orin Kerr).

Update: Dan Drezner takes note of my approval (in comments at CT) of footnote 5 in the piece, which is simultaneously hysterically funny and completely true; next fall when (if?) I teach research methods, that one’s going in the lecture.

I spoke to the local Optimist Club at lunch today about the 2004 elections in Mississippi and nationwide; I had a few interesting questions and I think it well. Now if I can just get myself on TV I can be a media star like my personal hero Larry Sabato.

Megan McArdle slips up referring to “the Trent Lott Memorial Hogback Research Project at the University of Mississippi.”

What nonsense. Hogback research is conducted at Mississippi State; Ole Miss studies food service management and leadership. Get your pork barrel programs straight, people!

Scott Althaus and Devon Largio have an interesting article in this month’s issue of PS: Political Science and Politics that advances an alternative (and, in my mind, more convincing) explanation of why the public links Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks than the “Bush lied” meme. It’s only five pages, so, ATSRTWT.

Steve Landsberg asks:

How come a sandwich at the airport deli costs me twice as much as a sandwich at the deli down the block, but they’ll both sell me a newspaper for the exact same price?

My guess: the newspaper has a suggested retail price on its cover, and therefore if the airport vendor tried to take advantage of its capitive audience the consumer would object to the price inflation. Deli sandwiches don’t come with sticker prices, so consumers don’t mind the price variation as much. (I also suspect the profit margin for retailers on newspapers is somewhat higher than on sandwiches, but I’m not sure that matters as much in this case.)

Today’s Clarion-Ledger has an interesting story based on an interview with Judge Neal Biggers, Jr., who presided over the Ayers desegregation case. Interestingly, a shutdown of both MVSU and MUW was on the table in the mid-1990s, but Biggers rejected that as part of the solution because he doubted the College Board’s sincerity in planning to shut them down. He also echos a point that I’ve made repeatedly over the years (and which has been a major roadblock to finalizing the settlement):

“The remedy for the situation was not to enhance segregated facilities, but to desegregate the facilities. Some of the plaintiffs, it seemed, wanted equal, segregated facilities,’’ [Biggers] said.

Greg Ransom writes:

STEVE CHAPMAN opposes the war and opposes the death penalty, so he’s voting Democrat for President for the first time in his life. He also quotes David Boaz of the CATO Institute, “Republicans wouldn’t give Kerry every bad thing he wants, and they do give Bush every bad thing he wants.” Many anti-war and pro- civil liberties libertarians are refusing to vote for Bush. A good many of these folks have always voted a straight Libertarian Party ticket. Now some are switching tickets for John Kerry. Passing strange. All I can figure is that more than a few became libertarians out of the nightmare of the Vietman experience, and now some are Coming Home to anti-war leader John Kerry. That, at least, is a first try at a plausible hypothesis. Let me know if you have a better one.

Well, if your choice is between two nanny-statist fucktards, but only one of them (in one’s mind) cares about civil liberties, I’d go for the pro-civil-liberties fucktard personally. At least, if I were confined to voting for a fucktard, or were the sort of person who used that word in casual conversation.

Jeff Quinton notes that an investigation shows that around 60,000 voters appear on the voter rolls in both North Carolina and South Carolina.

One thing that always strikes me about the “double registration” stories is that most of the issues are clerical ones; for example, I registered to vote down here when I moved to Jackson, and I don’t have the faintest clue whether or not the county clerk bothered to tell the folks up in Oxford to invalidate my registration there. For that matter, I might still be on the voting books in Florida or Tennessee.

The University of Florida has fired the entire Gator coaching staff, effective at the end of this season. I knew the Zookster wasn’t exactly popular, but I’m somewhat surprised that he is getting the boot only halfway through the season.

Radley Balko and Tyler Cowen both explain why they won’t be voting for Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik. Balko:

I’m sorry, but I’m just not convinced that either Badnarik or the LP speaking on behalf of libertarianism to a national audience with limited exposure to the ideology would ultimately be good for libertarianism, the philosophy.

This is a guy who gives seminars advocating that the federal income tax is optional, who refuses to use zip codes, who says he’d blow up the UN building “after giving occupants a week to vacate,” who has equated FDR to Hitler, and who suggested we chain convicted felons to their beds until their muscles atrophy.

It gets worse. For more, check here and here.

I’ll gladly cast my ballot with the LP when the LP offers a candidate who isn’t an embarassment to libertarianism.

Cowen:

Nonetheless I must offer p = 0 when I ponder the chance that I vote for Badnarik. If I don’t like a picture, I’m not going to hang it on my wall. I gladly supported Ed Clark in 1980, let’s hope that the LP once again puts up a serious candidate.