We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
And it also gave us Carnegie Libraries, a pristine (or nearly so) coast line from the Carolinas down to the Florida line. (though when I walked around Dungeness Ozymandias kept bubbling up) and other acts of philanthropy like free hospitals.
Yet it also a time of frequent riots, coal field rebellions and upheaval as many knew they were starving while the big man feasted and were serfs in all but name.
The article on who is "getting rich" from ObamaCare has some inaccuracies. To describe hospitals generally as beneficiaries is not correct (based upon my increasingly desperate local hospital trying to figure out how to get approved for various ACA plans and what that means financially).
And then there is this statement: "The problem with hospitals today is that up to 30% percent of their patients are uninsured people who pay little or nothing, putting a huge dent in the top line." It is true that hospitals commonly write off that much of their revenue, but the vast bulk of the write off is denials and issues with miscoding of claims. These things can be manages but most hospitals just accept the revenue drop because it requires a detailed analysis and resubmitting process to trim that number. There are significant costs associated with serving the indigent in emergency rooms, if the hospital has an emergency room (and not all do, for liability insurance reasons), but the state often reimburses a portion of those costs as a sop for requiring the hospital to treat all comers. It's a complicated business.
The dirty secret about faculty hires is that they are often targeted toward a very specific individual and so the search process that precedes the hire is far from open, irrespective of the skin color of the candidates. But even with a particular individual in mind, university departments are required by federal EEO rules to go through what amounts to the charade of an open search. And of course it's easy for a RETIRED professor like Silverman to criticize from the sidelines, because he is not a young white guy fresh out of college who's looking for a job in academia and simply wants a fair shot at being judged on his abilities instead of having his skin color count AGAINST him. If the U of A is discriminating against non-white job candidates, then clearly something needs to be done about that because it's against the law. But that doesn't seem to be the case and is not what has Silverman's BVDs in a twist.
"Eighty to 90 percent of people who use crack and methamphetamine don’t get addicted. And the small number who do become addicted are nothing like the popular caricatures."
The first part of that statement might well be true. I have suspected for a long time that there are addictive people and others who do not become addicted regardless of the substance. But the second half of that makes me question the honesty or knowledge of the writer. The stats claim that about 80% of all crime is drug related. That is it is either to get money to buy drugs or it's violence to steal drugs or punish someone who cheated them in a drug deal, etc. Almost all of the home invasions we hear about are drug related. Most of the shootings are drug related. It appears that if we could suddenly eliminate drugs (including alcohol) that crime would almost disappear. This is contrary to the statement "...the small number who do become addicted are nothing like the popular caricatures."