It is better to know some of the questions than all of the answers.
James Thurber
Pro-Liberty Thought of the Day
 |
| Via Milton Friedman group on FB |
ObamaCare Roundup: Rant Part I
I want to rant at this point. An initial disclaimer: I have not done academic research in the area of healthcare, I am not a policy guru, and I have limited experience in the sector (I did a couple of subcontracts with a CMS (HHS) vendor). Obviously I have had health insurance with employers over the years, and I have a sister and two nieces whom are registered nurses, although we really haven't discussed public policy issues on health. I have done considerable reading from a number of relevant sources and am reasonably literate on salient issues. I also understand both sides of the debate and the nature of political spin and political posturing.
It is true that I have opposed ObamaCare from the get-go, but I will point out that my positions, e.g., on GOP policy prescriptions, have changed over the life of the blog. For example, I supported GOP proposals for comprehensive malpractice tort reforms, but as my political perspective has become more minarchist (I have a good summary in a Facebook comment succinctly describing my libertarian-conservative standpoint republished in yesterday's post), I don't want to centralize policy, including tort reform, on the national level. I feel that. short of a true free market, if health care is to be regulated, it should be at the state level; this doesn't mean that state regulation doesn't have its own problems--for example, several states (New York, Massachusetts and/or others) have high-cost regulations. The problem is a familiar one: government is a monopoly. One method to reform overregulated healthcare is to promote competition with out-of-state insurers, subject to their own health regulations. This would be a legitimate exercise of interstate commerce powers granted under the Constitution, the intent which was to promote a free market among the states and eliminate interstate barriers to trade. Thus, Texas-based insurers, given recent malpractice tort reform, would have a competitive policy advantage, which would motivate relevant reforms in other states where insurers are subjected to policies favorable to crony lawyers in search of deep pockets. Now, to be fair, the Republicans have, as a standard talking point, embraced shopping for policies.
The second criticism I have is the objectionable "repeal and replace" (the second part, not the first). "Replacing" seems to suggest that federal policy is desirable and a "solution", instead of recognizing the fact that dysfunctional government policy is part of the problem. Other than using legitimate interstate commerce authority to empower insurers to offer their own policies across state lines and possibly to reinsure against catastrophic coverage (this is a topic I need to examine more fully, because I think a lot of government insurance is monopolistic and should be privatized, e.g., flood insurance, and/or is morally hazardous, e.g., deposit insurance.) The thing in particular I'm worried about is a plan where lifetime payouts are exhausted, say, $4M; why would any insurer step in to pick up potentially millions more in charges, which only the wealthiest could finance? What about genetic birth defects, not entirely random events....
Clearly somehow these expenses are being absorbed somehow--even if the household has to declare bankruptcy, and charged back to other parties or consumers. I would at least like to see a system where families didn't need to liquidate all assets before qualifying for some funding mechanism (why save for a rainy day or retirement? This is morally hazardous). I will say I'm intrigued by a a hybrid proposal where we have guaranteed catastrophic coverage; this proposal, which would cost about $420B a year, basically would redirect existing cash flows (over $300B in tax revenue is lost through tax-privileged exclusions, with limited effect on people's disposable income; then, of course, there are the existing premiums).
Finally, there's been a GOP plan that addresses the equal protection, i.e., that many individual plans are purchased with after-tax dollars, so extend the same tax benefits for those in the individual markets. On its face, it seems fairer and more just. I have changed my opinion on this, and believe it or not, it had to do with the Sandra Fluke controversy. The idea that Sandra Fluke's birth control expenses should be socialized is grossly offensive. Why should a post-menopausal couple (or a celibate person, like me) subsidize the expenses of Ms. Fluke's active sex life, which we may not personally approve off? Sexually active couples have other expenses (say, dinner out, etc.) we aren't expected to share. Condoms, pills or other contraceptive methods are relatively inexpensive and widely available; millions of people have paid and do pay for these items out of pocket. The purpose of auto insurance is not to cover fill-ups, oil changes, wiper blades, or batteries; it's for covering against accidents involving injury or property damage. In theory, everybody may incur ordinary expenses; what is the purpose of handling condoms or pills through an insurance company? They have to handle the paperwork, etc., which ultimately gets charged back.
The same thing is relevant in healthcare insurance treatment. If everyone is responsible for their own ordinary health expenses, what's the purpose of government subsidizing everyone? Why stop with healthcare being "more equal"? Should food, shelter, clothing, utilities, etc. also have a privileged tax status? If everyone is getting a tax break, nobody is getting a tax break. Money is fungible; my incidental food, medical and other expenses should be handled directly. Government policy has already exacerbated sector cost pressures. The answer is not to throw government subsidies at more people; it should get out of subsidizing employer-provided health care.
In the next installment, I'll deal with the more serious issues of "progressive reforms".
Facebook Corner
 |
| Courtesy of LFC |
- "Jive Talkin'"
- "The Fool on the Hill"
- "Still The One"
- "Eye in the Sky"
- "Everybody Plays the Fool'
- "Still The One"
- "Every Step You Take (I'll Be Watching You)"
- "(It's Only) Words"
- "The Bitch is Back"
- "Don't Know Much"
How can you tell someone supports peace and freedom? The UNDERSTAND "government". ~MS
Tribes or gangs also UNDERSTAND government (bootleggers and Baptists). I would argue that statists don't believe in freedom, the "invisible hand", etc.
(from Sen. Tom Coburn) For years, members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have put their parochial desires ahead of the nation’s best interest. Funding for low-priority and obscure parks earmarked by lawmakers has come at the cost of caring for our national treasures like the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, the National Mall and Independence Park in Philadelphia. Last year alone, the National Park Service put off more than a quarter billion dollars in much needed maintenance projects, adding to the $11.5 billion maintenance backlog already threatening the health, safety, and accessibility of park visitors. I hope this report inspires my colleagues to set common sense priorities and make sure our parks reflect our nation’s greatness rather than Washington’s incompetence.
Tom, I think the solution is in privatizing management of the parks, not throwing more tax dollars at public sector mismanagement.
(from Judge Napolitano) States are starting to put black boxes in cars to tax you. Good policy or gross invasion of privacy.
I definitely don't like the lack of transparency in mandating a potential risk to privacy, and in principle the black box should be sold in the competitive free market. That being said, I don't mind technology being used to establish metered road usage as a fairer means of road use charge; we of course need to regulate state use of data relevant to constitutional search due process.
(SIS) "Tort reform" is like a band-aid on a leg that was just ripped off. ~MS
Come now! Where's the outrage against crony lawyers?
(Cato Institute) "High housing prices do not prove that lots of people really find an area desirable. Instead, they are more a sign of government barriers to housing."
I think the blurb is misleading. It implies Bloomberg, not the author, said "Instead, they are a barrier...". In a free market, high rents should attract real estate developers... But in this case, we have price fixing policies resulting in an artificial shortage. Until NYC scraps counterproductive rent control policies, only the rich can afford to own.
'
(SIS) features this Bastiat quote. "If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one."~Robert LeFevre
Bastiat was not an anarchist; he believed in laissez faire. He understood the corruptibility of politics, the opportunity costs of bad policies. But it's not just government which attempts to meddle with the economy--bootleggers and Baptists!
LFC shared an SIS image, which points out political minorities are outnumbered in final democratic votes.
Let's go back to "taxation without representation". The majority would still have prevailed. But at least the minority has the right to be heard and possibly influence policy.
(LFC) hii,, need help : i wanna know the difference between keynes & the classics and why keynes suggest the intervention of the gouvernement in market
I had to scan the other responses; I thought others would have mentioned scalability of government, wage stickiness, multiplier effects, etc. Just to give a slice: in a deflationary cycle, debts don't and crowd out other expenditures. The reverse occurs under inflation: debts are repaid with cheaper dollars, providing more funds for investment/expansion, etc. (which is why Yellen and most progressives think a little inflation is a good thing). Note: unlike other discussants, I thought the questioner wanted an explanation, not a critique. I know GP Manish of Troy recently appeared on the Tom Woods show and gave a decent overview. I know Woods also has a webpage with Austrian School criticism sources.
LFC published a short piece, praising Edward Snowden as a hero.
You take a job knowingly violating your contract, you bulk-download material that doesn't belong to you and possibly could use the material to blackmail the US and other parties, and he's a "hero"? Yes, some revelations exposed examples of government misconduct. But this is rather like stealing another man's property and giving a fraction to the poor. It's not charity: it's theft. Snowden should have worked through the system.
LFC poses why mega corporations don't back libertarians, while libertarians espouse more economic liberty to their benefit.
Some do (like the Koch brothers). But the reality is that libertarians are a political minority, corporations like stability in government policy and want to have a voice at the table of public policy (which many view as corrupt, anti-competitive).
SIS published an image implying we are accomplices to murder because of Obama's drone policy is paid for by tax dollars
Murder is premeditated targeting of innocents. As badly flawed and objectionable Obama's interventionist policy is, collateral damage is not genocide. I do think what Obama is doing is morally unacceptable, but when you overstate your case (I know real genocide conducted by war criminals like Pol Pot, Hitler, and Saddam Hussein), you lose credibility and moral authority.
Political Humor
According to a new report, more than 700 fake Obamacare websites have been created. Security experts say it's simple to identify the phony sites because they are easy to log on to. - Jay Leno
[And the rates are more affordable.. And if you act now, you get a policy personally signed by Obama, a free DVD of the more than 30 Obama speeches on ObamaCare and the exclusive ObamaCare bloopers tape...]
The White House said today that one of the reasons the Obamacare website has had so many problems is because it's so popular that it was overwhelmed. Really? How come Psy's "Gangnam Style" video never had any problems? He got 2.5 billion hits! - Jay Leno
[They estimated website use based on the volume of orders for the Barack Obama Cabbage Patch Kids dolls.]
 |
| Via Chinese news |
Warning: the following clip is apparently a GOP spot. The GOP, of course, has committed its own sins against the free market, such as the unfunded Medicare prescription benefit.
"You've Got to Spread Some Candy Around"
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Glenn Foden and Townhall |
Hamilton, Joe Frank & Reynolds, "Don't Pull Your Love"
