<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Who&#8217;s Afraid of SCHIP Crowd-Out?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/07/whos_afraid_of.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/07/whos_afraid_of.html</link>
	<description>The Law, the Universe, and Everything</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:22:46 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.3</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: TMLutas</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/07/whos_afraid_of.html/comment-page-1#comment-53143</link>
		<dc:creator>TMLutas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jul 2007 01:16:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2007/07/whos-afraid-of-schip-crowd-out.html#comment-53143</guid>
		<description>Pardon me if I am somewhat skeptical of the New York Times. It&#039;s not that they&#039;ve lost nearly all their credibility... wait, that&#039;s exactly it. I think I dug up the study they vaguely referenced (Is the U.S. a Good Model for Reducing Social Exclusion in Europe?) and find it markedly unpersuasive.

Regulation is often gamed by incumbent producers to reduce the opportunity of upstarts upsetting the status quo. Europe is starting to figure that out and the study is a rear guard academic action in trying to maintain some sort of intellectual respectability for the old, failed, europe.

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pardon me if I am somewhat skeptical of the New York Times. It&#8217;s not that they&#8217;ve lost nearly all their credibility&#8230; wait, that&#8217;s exactly it. I think I dug up the study they vaguely referenced (Is the U.S. a Good Model for Reducing Social Exclusion in Europe?) and find it markedly unpersuasive.</p>
<p>Regulation is often gamed by incumbent producers to reduce the opportunity of upstarts upsetting the status quo. Europe is starting to figure that out and the study is a rear guard academic action in trying to maintain some sort of intellectual respectability for the old, failed, europe.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Frank</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/07/whos_afraid_of.html/comment-page-1#comment-53142</link>
		<dc:creator>Frank</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2007 17:20:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2007/07/whos-afraid-of-schip-crowd-out.html#comment-53142</guid>
		<description>Ken, this might be of interest:

&quot;Recent research surveyed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a governmental think tank for the rich nations, found that mobility in the United States is lower than in other industrial countries. One study found that mobility between generations — people doing better or worse than their parents — is weaker in America than in Denmark, Austria, Norway, Finland, Canada, Sweden, Germany, Spain and France. In America, there is more than a 40 percent chance that if a father is in the bottom fifth of the earnings’ distribution, his son will end up there, too. In Denmark, the equivalent odds are under 25 percent, and they are less than 30 percent in Britain.

America’s sluggish mobility is ultimately unsurprising. Wealthy parents not only pass on that wealth in inheritances, they can pay for better education, nutrition and health care for their children. The poor cannot afford this investment in their children’s development — and the government doesn’t provide nearly enough help. In a speech earlier this year, the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke, argued that while the inequality of rewards fuels the economy by making people exert themselves, opportunity should be “as widely distributed and as equal as possible.” The problem is that the have-nots don’t have many opportunities either.&quot;

from

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/opinion/13fri2.html?_r=1&amp;oref=slogin

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ken, this might be of interest:</p>
<p>&#8220;Recent research surveyed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a governmental think tank for the rich nations, found that mobility in the United States is lower than in other industrial countries. One study found that mobility between generations — people doing better or worse than their parents — is weaker in America than in Denmark, Austria, Norway, Finland, Canada, Sweden, Germany, Spain and France. In America, there is more than a 40 percent chance that if a father is in the bottom fifth of the earnings’ distribution, his son will end up there, too. In Denmark, the equivalent odds are under 25 percent, and they are less than 30 percent in Britain.</p>
<p>America’s sluggish mobility is ultimately unsurprising. Wealthy parents not only pass on that wealth in inheritances, they can pay for better education, nutrition and health care for their children. The poor cannot afford this investment in their children’s development — and the government doesn’t provide nearly enough help. In a speech earlier this year, the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke, argued that while the inequality of rewards fuels the economy by making people exert themselves, opportunity should be “as widely distributed and as equal as possible.” The problem is that the have-nots don’t have many opportunities either.&#8221;</p>
<p>from</p>
<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/opinion/13fri2.html?_r=1&#038;oref=slogin" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/opinion/13fri2.html?_r=1&#038;oref=slogin</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ken</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/07/whos_afraid_of.html/comment-page-1#comment-53141</link>
		<dc:creator>Ken</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:05:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2007/07/whos-afraid-of-schip-crowd-out.html#comment-53141</guid>
		<description>I might find the CBO chart somewhat meaningful if those quintiles were fairly static.  Unfortunately (or fortunately from my perspective) longitudinal studies indicate otherwise: persons who start out in the bottom quintile are extremely unlikely to remain there for an extended period of time.  In other words, there really are no &lt;i&gt;&quot;poor&quot;&lt;/i&gt; or &lt;i&gt;&quot;rich&quot;&lt;/i&gt;, only those &lt;i&gt;&quot;currently poor&quot;&lt;/i&gt; or &lt;i&gt;&quot;currently rich&quot;&lt;/i&gt;.  Things changes; people&#039;s fortunes wax and wane; life goes on.

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I might find the CBO chart somewhat meaningful if those quintiles were fairly static.  Unfortunately (or fortunately from my perspective) longitudinal studies indicate otherwise: persons who start out in the bottom quintile are extremely unlikely to remain there for an extended period of time.  In other words, there really are no <i>&#8220;poor&#8221;</i> or <i>&#8220;rich&#8221;</i>, only those <i>&#8220;currently poor&#8221;</i> or <i>&#8220;currently rich&#8221;</i>.  Things changes; people&#8217;s fortunes wax and wane; life goes on.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
