Faster and Faster
Health care is a deeply complicated subject, and the same goes for economics, and when the two collide, the results can get pretty technical. Despite all this, in your April 3 issue, Yuval Levin (“Scoring the GOP Health-Care Plan”) does an excellent job of explaining the ill-fated plan’s virtues and flaws. Still, there were points in the piece where even this highly motivated reader had trouble following all the math. Consider, for example, this sentence (emphasis added): “Second, it assumes that Medicaid spending growth will accelerate much faster than overall health spending in the coming years . . .” If I understand properly, this means that the rate of change of the rate of change of the rate of change of Medicaid spending will be a lot bigger than the same figure for overall spending. Yikes! I don’t know what that means, but it sounds almost as scary as single-payer.
Patricia C. Ellison
St. Petersburg, Fla.
David Harsanyi’s piece “Sensitive Senate” (March 6) reminded me of a funny story told about Calvin Coolidge. When he was governor of Massachusetts, two of the state senators had a bitter argument, which ended with one telling the other, “Go to hell.” The offended politician went to see Coolidge to ask him to address the matter. Coolidge told him, “I have looked up the law, senator. You don’t have to go.”
Big Sur, Calif.
Your March 20 issue (the Week) calls the game of Monopoly “perfect for the age of Trump.” In some ways, perhaps, it is; yet there are also key differences. To wit: In Monopoly, property has to be bought at the stated price, instead of getting it condemned with eminent domain; and when you go bankrupt, you have to actually stop playing.