One major problem with nearly all published calculations of income inequality (including the most prominent ones by people like Piketty and Saez) is that they do not count the actuarial value of health insurance (or other benefits) in their calculations.  They also do not count the value of government transfers (welfare).  When these are accounted for, income inequality looks a lot better than progressives are willing to let on.  Here's a nice paper by Kosali Simon and Richard Burkhauser that makes this point.

Two of Vernor Vinge's novels (A Deepness in the Sky and A Fire Upon the Deep) deserve a place in the pantheon.  Ursula Le Guin's Dispossessed and especially Left Hand of Darkness are also great.

Anything that reminds us of our mortality is a cause for melancholy.  But when it's tinged with a touch of nostalgia -- my mom had a cinnamon spice container just like that!-- it's a sweet melancholy.  Thanks for a fantastic post, SP.

I think a lot of the harm will take a bit of time to manifest itself.  For instance, it seems likely that a lot of employers (especially employers of low income workers) will drop insurance coverage.  But it will probably take time for employers to realize that it would financially better for them (and their employees) to stop providing health insurance when they have been providing health insurance for many years and are used to it.  The fiscal impacts of the ACA on the federal budget and on Medicare also balloon over time; so 2014 will be bad, but 2015 will be even worse.

David, you're right of course about the young.  An additional reason they will be harmed is that they will be forced (through the mandate/tax) to subsidize insurance for older people.  A politically competent conservative party would be able to take advantage of the harm caused to all of these groups.

That's exactly right -- there's a lot of competition to dive over the fiscal cliff.  But remember, US federal debt has already been downgraded.  In this one area -- currency debasement -- I expect President Obama to excel.

Thanks for the link -- it's an interesting read.  The problem, as it has been over the past two years, is that the House cannot accomplish any of these things while the White House stands in the way.

I agree with you that honesty about the fiscal problems we face is important, and that's exactly the strategy I suggest for the Republicans.  And while I also agree that both parties have trouble with this, I'm afraid the Democrats are beyond hope.  Mine anyways. 

As far as whether people will remember these items 10 years from now, I'm afraid I have to disagree.  Even if the particulars are forgotten, the decisions made about these items over the next few months will have profound implications for America and its economy over the next decades. 

One way that a Romney administration could really dent Obamacare (the ACA) would be to actually follow the law. 

The ACA requires states to organize insurance marketplaces (called "exchanges"), but if they refuse, it requires the federal government to organize an exchange for them. There's a provision in the ACA which says that people who buy insurance through a federally organized exchange are ineligible for federal subsidies -- see here or here. Without these subsidies, the whole scheme falls apart since there are few low and middle income families who can afford to pay $12,000+ per year to buy the overly generous plans required by the ACA. 

The Obama administration has ignored this provision of the ACA and plans to provide subsidies whether an exchange is federally organized or not.  There's no reason for a Romney administration to follow suit, and it would not require an act of Congress to accomplish.

** edited to correct an embarrassing grammatical error

Klavan is pretty entertaining.  He's basically telling the story that Peter Wallison tells about the housing/financial collapse, but it sure is more fun to hear Klavan tell it.  I'd hate to be on the receiving end.

Optimist.  A polite "I told you so" seems most in keeping with the Ricochet way.

Thanks for link, Owl:  a brilliant romp through the law of unintended consequences.  Thanks also to everyone else who commented.  I'm still mulling over some of the issues raised. 

My favorite rant/reasoned brief against the notion of "social justice" as the left uses it is Tom Sowell's book "Vision of the Annointed".  He relabels it "cosmic justice" which seems entirely appropriate since the proponents of that brand of justice are most concerned with utopian objectives (the end of poverty, the elimination of inequality, etc.) that will only be possible come the eschaton. 

Really an excellent letter.   Thanks, Mr. Carter.

You have hit on the main problem with how ACA treats Medicare.  It will inevitably lead to a government board making these decisions, instead of doctors, patients, and insurers who stand to lose customers if they do the wrong thing.

George, this is exactly right.  Of course, the corollary to this is that there are just not enough rich people in California to fund all the possible utopian schemes, much less to pay for the upkeep of roads, retirement packages for policemen and teachers, and the like.