Commentary


America’s corporate socialist medical disaster 2   Recently updated !

Recently I got a notice from Covenant Health saying I owe over $600. My only recent use of their services was a cursory examination and a blood test. They’ve sent me notices that I owe large amounts of money several times before; the bills always go away after a few days. But it’s nerve-wracking and suggests their billing department is inept.

Health care operates under a business model that would be grossly illegal for anyone else. It’s the result of legislation over many years that has relieved health providers of normal responsibilities while making insurance companies, rather than patients, their customers.

Normally you expect to know what you’re going to be charged for something. Even veterinarians gladly provide estimates. It’s impossible to find out from health care providers what a visit or procedure will cost you. At best, you’ll get a range of a couple of orders of magnitude. Tales of people getting unexpected five-figure bills keep turning up in the news. What insurance will and won’t cover is equally opaque. Try making sense of an “Explanation” of Benefits.

We as individuals don’t get a tax break on health insurance, but employers do. This has pushed Americans into dependency on their jobs to get insurance. Obamacare somewhat mitigated this, but it imposed a tax on not buying insurance. You’d think this triumph of corporate lobbying would outrage the progressives, but they’re the ones who wanted it. Laws require lots of things to be packaged into insurance, making it more expensive. Because insurance companies dominate the business, health providers charge excessive rates, knowing the insurers will bargain them down. If you don’t want insurance, you have to pay the higher price as well as being taxed for the privilege.

We might call this situation corporate socialism. Everything is ultimately run by the government, but corporations handle the details, making money while being relieved of accountability.

Here’s an article on what’s wrong and how to fix it from someone who understands the labyrinth of health care laws better than I do.

Will “Medicare for All” fix this? Don’t make me laugh. I’m on Medicare. The concept is incoherent anyway. Medicare works by having people pay money during their working years to support the costs of people who used to do the same. “Medicare for All” implies everyone’s on the receiving side.

Don’t expect this to be fixed soon. The Democrats are angling for even more control of the system, which will make health care more expensive and less answerable. The Republicans will pretend that what we have is “free enterprise.”

And the jerks at Covenant Health will cause a few extra heart attacks with their random billing. Just by the way, they have data security problems as well. I received a notice that I may be eligible for a little money from them in a class action settlement. Covenant Health was hit with a ransomware attack in 2025. If I’m reading the article correctly, they paid off the extortionist and found confidential data was compromised anyway.

Update: Checking some other correspondence, I see that I’ve been billed for a procedure I never had, at a hospital I’ve never been to, referred by a doctor I’ve never heard of. Covenant’s page on surprise billing suggests I contact a Tennessee government agency. I’m in New Hampshire and haven’t been in Tennessee in decades!

It gets worse. The phone number given on that page is good only for Tennessee. The person who answered gave me another number to call. I called that number and was told I don’t really owe that amount, it’s pending insurance review, which is definitely not what the website says. Just argh.


The new landscape   Recently updated !

We have what we wished for. Now things change. The danger from Trump seems reduced, though he may now be more desperate than ever. The danger from the Democrats has increased. Opposing parties will control the White House and Congress, which is good.

The real battle is still one of ideas, the classical liberal or libertarian view against the centralized-power views of the left and the right. The pro-freedom position has lost ground to socialism and Trumpism. Changing people’s minds on a large scale is a hopeless proposition at present. The best we can do is to keep the case for freedom alive and make it available.

I’m not talking just about abstract philosophy and economics. Narratives are what motivate people, and we have the best narrative. The right has “Keep the nation free of foreign contamination.” The left has “You will be assimilated into the Collective.” We say that each individual is a unique value, the free human mind is a great force for well-being and prosperity, and we can get along with people who are different from us.

An especially satisfying way to advance liberty is to live by your principles. Avoid government handouts. Don’t make hypocritical exceptions. Be generous to friends and good causes if you can; that’s one way to keep taxes down.

I’ll work on getting more book reviews into this blog. The last one was in August, which is much too long ago. I’m getting through a book right now that looks like a good one to discuss, giving a much-needed perspective on history.


Economics denial 2

In an event I attended this fall, a speaker claimed “there is no such thing as scarcity.” The absurdity of the claim should be obvious, but it’s a symptom of a common form of thinking. It’s denial of basic economic principles.

I’m not an economist. I don’t know a lot about demand curves and monetary reserves. There are some things, though, that everyone should understand about economics. I’m talking about understanding on the everyday level, just as we should have basic knowledge of the physical sciences. We should know that being hit by a massive, fast-moving object will have a big impact, that water expands when it freezes, that touching a high-voltage electrode is dangerous. Similarly, in economics we should know that resources exist in limited amounts, cost increases drive prices up, and shifting costs doesn’t make them go away.

Most people don’t think much about these things. Some actively reject basic economic principles, even when it means rejecting common sense. The “no such thing as scarcity” line is an example. Another is the notion that an increased minimum wage constitutes a “pay raise.” They can’t or won’t grasp that when the mandated wage goes up, something else has to yield. Employees will get fewer hours, be worked harder, or lose their jobs, or what they deliver will become more expensive or less available. Economics says there’s no such thing as a free lunch, but they imagine that governments can magick free lunches into existence. They’re economics deniers.

“Free” services on the Internet boost the illusion that economics is optional. People can access all kinds of information without paying for it. Actually, they pay, in the form of being exposed to advertising and having the content they see manipulated. If they use an ad blocker (as I do), they pay in inconvenience, as some sites don’t work properly or refuse access. Some sites offer a paid level of access with extra features. I’ve been paying for Dreamwidth and some other services for years, because I think they’re worth it. Many people, though, think they should get them for free.

Star Trek makes this idea into a futuristic reductio ad absurdem. Supposedly money is unnecessary because you can get anything you want from a replicator, including more replicators. Don’t ask where all the energy to power the replicators comes from. Don’t ask why Starfleet can’t defeat any enemy just by churning out starships without limit. Don’t ask why the streets aren’t overflowing with stuff people replicate on a whim.

People would laugh at a story that posited machines running forever without a power source, but they think economic resources can come out of nowhere. Eventually they discover the real cost of expecting “free” stuff.


Analysis of a campaign deception

Almost all candidates for national offices are dishonest. I’ve known that for a long time, but it’s painful to be reminded that a candidate I’d planned to vote for is a deceptive bum. Recently I came across a Bluesky post by Stefany Shaheen, who’s running for US representative from my district, that was blatantly misleading.

In the video, her opponent Anthony DiLorenzo is asked if he supported Trump’s Iran war. The response in the clip is, “I would support the president at this stage.” The clip is cut off tightly at the end of that sentence, which made me suspicious. I was able to find a transcript which included his reply. It didn’t end with that sentence. His next two sentences were, “I would look at this. If we’re still there in six months I’d be looking at it differently.”

In addition to cutting off those words, Shaheen didn’t indicate anywhere that he said that in March 2026.

Collodi's PinocchioMore recently, DiLorenzo has said, “I do not support the war, and I would ask that I would support immediate withdrawal right now, bringing our brave men and women home. That’s a weak turnaround, which feels like deserting a losing cause. He hasn’t said the war was wrong from the beginning. Still, his shift needs to be acknowledged when citing the earlier quote.

If she really cared about stopping the war, she’d have congratulated DiLorenzo for taking little steps in the right direction while noting how long he took and how small the steps have been. Instead, she’s creating an impression that Republican support for Trump’s war is more solid than it is. The only thing she cares about is getting elected.

Might she have been tricked herself? Could someone else have handed her that clip without further explanation? If it was Random Q. Poster, I might believe that, but Shaheen has a staff to verify the information she passes on and a higher level of responsibility than most Bluesky users. She should have asked for the date of the clip. She should have noticed how tightly DiLorenzo’s words were cut off. It wasn’t just carelessness.

Another Bluesky post by Shaheen claims to show that “DiLorenzo says he’ll be a yes vote for Donald Trump on Iran,” but the video gives a fragment of a sentence, with both the beginning and the end cut off. It’s impossible to tell what he means.

Politicians lie because they get away with it. They get away with it because people expect nothing better of them. People expect nothing better of them because they lie all the time. And around and around and around goes the big wheel…


Artificial intelligence panic

The past year or two have seen the rise of AI software that tries to mimic humans. There are AI chatbots, writers, researchers, and even songwriters. Often they seem more like artificial stupidity. One bot, Grok, has even gotten religion. People are panicking, saying artificial intelligence will take away all our jobs, make it impossible to tell reality from deepfakes, or even destroy the world. It’s far from the first tech panic in history, and unless AI really destroys the world, it won’t be the last.

AI has been around for a long time. Alan Turing wrote a paper in 1950 suggesting that machines can think. The term “artificial intelligence” was coined in 1956. Joseph Weizenbaum’s “Eliza” program, released in 1966, played at psychiatric advice. Some people even found it helpful. In the same year, Robert Heinlein’s The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress presents an intelligent computer as the master strategist in the fight for lunar independence.

Internet users use AI many times a day, often without knowing it. Search engines are driven by AI. Writers use grammar checkers that analyze their writing with AI. The technology decides which posts and ads you’ll see on Facebook. Some of these uses have been around for years.

The difference is that traditional AI works in a limited domain. Software can find pages that match queries, analyze grammar, or play chess. No one program tried to do all these things. Chatbots like ChatGPT pretend to be experts on everything. It works about as well as when people do that. They use a Large Language Model (LLM), which is a crude form of AI that ingests huge amounts of information and spits it back out as answers. Which is basically what Eliza did, but with a much larger information base. The article I linked to above called the process “an extraordinarily sophisticated game of autocomplete.”

AI data centers require huge amounts of power. That’s a clue to how they work: brute-force processing, not anything that resembles human thought.

The old rule “garbage in, garbage out” still applies. These systems are prone to “hallucinations,” i.e., invented information. When people use LLM output as trusted information, they sometimes pass along invented quotations and references to non-existent sources. Legal papers have especially had problems with made-up citations. The problem isn’t so much with using AI as with treating it as the last word. Any computer output needs to be checked for accuracy, but LLM output can feel authoritative.

AI systems have made it easier to trick people and get around security systems. A few comments submitted to this blog have looked, at first glance, like products of human thinking. Not necessarily very good thinking, but human. On a closer look, I could see that they strung words together in ways that even a stupid person wouldn’t. I don’t think I’ve unknowingly approved any AI comments, but I could be tricked. That’s relatively harmless. But if an AI impersonated someone I trusted and got me to give it confidential information, it could be bad.

Some people talk about apocalyptic scenarios. Could an AI impersonate Donald Trump and start a nuclear war? I’m less worried about that than I am about Donald Trump starting a nuclear war. Security systems need to keep up with technology, but that’s not new.

The most annoying thing about LLMs, and a big source of the hostility to AI, is using it to avoid creative thinking. Magazines are swamped with AI-written stories. AI-generated “art” is all over the Web. MASSFILC was sent an offer of AI-written filk songs, and the spammer even wanted money for them. Search for “AI funeral eulogy” on your favorite search engine, and you’ll find a bunch of offers so you can let the world know how bad a computer feels about Grandma’s death.

Another issue comes from a strange corner of the Internet, arguing that AI systems are conscious, running them is slavery, and shutting them down is murder. That’s so full of absurdities it’s hard to know where to start. What is conscious? The hardware that’s running the code? The software itself, like a spirit inhabiting the computer? We don’t know exactly how consciousness arises, but it’s an aspect of a body that experiences and interacts with the world. It isn’t a spirit that exists independently of our bodies or a demon that possesses them. Everything an AI system does is determined by code that runs on it, and the hypothesis of awareness isn’t necessary to explain anything. Computers that “wake up” are just a science fiction device. If some future system uses a “positronic brain” or whatever might enable awareness and purpose, that’s a different story.

Advancing technology presents new challenges. It always has. But the sweeping hostility to AI we’ve seen lately is just the latest tech panic.