The future is purchased by the present.
Samuel Johnson
Congratulations, World Series Champions Boston Red Sox!
Third Title in a Decade!
I'm sure that most of my family and relatives are happy tonight. My folks and next 4 siblings (while my Dad was stationed on Cape Cod) were born in Massachusetts; the Red Sox Nation has a fanatic following (some relatives in their youth often cried themselves to sleep after a Red Sox loss). As an American League fan, I of course was rooting for the Red Sox; my baby sister and her family live in the St. Louis suburbs, so I'm sure they are disappointed. I was a little worried after the Sox blew game 3 on a bizarre base runner interference call...
Images of the Day
 |
| Barack Obama is scarier than Michael Myers All tricks, no treats.... |
 |
| Via Patriot Post Imagine your individual health insurance plan is a football and Lucy is Barack Hussein Obama |
ObamaCare Roundup
Rant Part II (Part I)
In the first part, I criticized certain GOP proposals, such as federal malpractice reform (which doesn't mean opposing tort reform in concept, just the centralization of reform), the 'replace' part of the 'repeal and replace' soundbite for the same flaw, and expanding the tax shelter of health insurance for the individual policy market (this has nothing to do with opposing equal protection, but of throwing more good money at bad policy: I am deeply troubled by "tax expenditures" or implicit subsidies for employer-sponsored health insurance. Among other things, under a progressive tax regime, higher income workers, the ones most likely to have discretionary income to purchase health insurance, get bigger tax credits. There has also been a tax incentive to transfer out-of-pocket ordinary health expenses to health insurance, which is how we end up with gold-plated health care plans for union members. Government tax policy distorts pricing; because out-of-pocket prices are artificially low, demand for relevant medical goods and services is higher, exacerbating sector inflationary pressures.) I want insurance to be insurance, e.g., against relatively rare, expensive treatment of catastrophic diseases or conditions.) Although I would prefer to see to see government out of the health sector, if government is involved, I would like to see it to be an insurer of last resort against catastrophic health costs; a significant portion of that cost could be covered by reforming tax policy. Clearly these costs are getting covered (see discussion below or here).
This isn't to say I approve of local industry practices. As many readers know, I have struggled with a weight problem almost all my adult life, although I've constantly worked out over the years. (I describe this in my nutrition blog.) I've been otherwise blessed with decent health; I don't recall having a personal physician during my 5 years as a professor, for example. I had an outpatient procedure a few years back; ironically it was scheduled while I was in a COBRA plan and working as an independent consultant, but my physician decided to drop me over showing up late (due to traffic conditions on the Baltimore loop) to his appointment to discuss my latest blood test results, and the surgeon cancelled the scheduled surgery. (I had to call when I didn't get a promised packet by the beginning of the week of the surgery. As you might guess, I am less than impressed with the professionalism of the two doctors. The surgeon defended herself saying she wouldn't do surgery without my having a personal physician. Only two problems with that: (1) I wasn't aware that my doctor had dropped me and (2) she had no way of knowing, assuming I was aware of it, that I hadn't replaced him. Around this time I was negotiating with a government contractor agency for a perm position. My new insurance plan approved the procedure less than 2 months on the job; the insurer wanted to verify I had had continuous coverage over the preceding year.
At some point after I resumed my career as an independent, I tried to sign up for an individual catastrophic plan with high deductibles. Most people can appreciate the tedious nature of the applications online, and then you're supposed to get an underwriting decision. (As I recall, there was no discussion of my medical history over the years, number of office visits, etc.) I was quickly rejected with no explanation but would get a mailed one; that one told me that because my self-reported height and weight implied an excess BMI and rejected my application, sending me instead a flyer on the state's high risk health pool program, costing almost triple what I had paid under the old COBRA plan. First, I was highly annoyed I had spent all that time completing that application, just to find out they were interested in 2 numbers. I didn't want or need a gold-plated health "insurance" plan. I could easily handle office visits out of pocket--one premium payment would pay for a year of office visits plus change. All I wanted was catastrophic coverage, against low-risk serious health issues. I had a rainy day fund for my deductible.
I'll have to continue this discussion in a part III. (I have found myself spending too much time on Facebook (below), especially with a couple of groups which are posting numerous entries daily; I'll probably have to drop at least one of the groups and be more selective with the other.)
I just want to make a few comments about RomneyCare. Although I did discuss RomneyCare at points during last year's campaign, it was mostly to describe the process and to debunk the purported link between RomneyCare and ObamaCare. Romney, in my view, never adequately distanced himself from RomneyCare; I think this was for a couple of reasons: first, I think he wanted to distinguish his bipartisan record against Obama's sharply partisan approach; second, it was the signature achievement of his term in office. Let's remember the context. The federal and state governments end up picking up much uncompensated costs (among other things, there's a federal law requiring hospitals to treat patients in serious condition, regardless of ability to pay). Despite over 90% of Massachusetts residents having insurance before reform, the Bush Administration was convinced they were picking up too much of the costs of freeloading uninsured and pulled a Reid-style extortion to pull out all federal Medicaid funding unless Massachusetts got their uninsured costs under control.
The Massachusetts Dems, of course, wanted to take over healthcare in the state with a single-payer system. Instead, Romney designed an exchange solution with mandates and effectively turned funds for uncompensated care into means-tested subsidies for exchange plans. He didn't get everything he wanted--the 85% Dem Massachusetts legislature overrode a few item vetoes.
Now here's the point: during the campaign Romney tried to scapegoat "freeloaders" to justify the reform. I was mortified but since I had endorsed Romney (something I don't regret, over easily the worst President in US history). Now granted, Romney had consistent talking points against ObamaCare and he had fended off a Statist assault on healthcare, but several points: First, there are still a significant number of residents without a policy for financial reasons. Massachusetts has among the highest rates in the nations for policies: in part, this was due to guaranteed issue and community rating policies passed in 1996, and a high set of benefit mandates. So, for example, a young person was typically being charged artificially high rates to pay for older or sicker plan participants. This is just a straightforward case of supply and demand: fewer people could pay for higher costing coverage. Obama understood this issue in 2008 before he flipped his position. Second, it turns out that the uninsured as pick up at least over a third of their own costs, and charity also picks up a chunk. It also turns out that uninsured people typically consume far less health care than insured people (use it or lose it). Here's a key point: when they do become insured they quickly consume more health services like the others. The savings from reducing uncompensated care--literally pennies on the dollar--are more than offset by higher consumption. And I believe Cato Institute's Mike Cannon in one of his pieces points out like I have independently, if your issue is uncollected care costs from upper-income freeloaders, why aren't you stepping up cost recovery efforts?
What this turns out to be is a gigantic bait and switch. The rationalization is concern for the uninsured--but the uninsured are not being denied emergency care, a lot of the people who don't pay would qualify for safety net support anyway, uninsured higher-income people are often just a new job offer away from coverage and in fact do pay out of pocket for much of their expenses. But the government, especially in ObamaCare, are uniformly imposing the very policies that escalate costs. There is a Cato Journal article that shows that medical costs were stable, if not slightly dropping before the Feds and states stepped in with Medicare and Medicaid. They are the ones whom indirectly subsidize employer-sponsored plans, exacerbating sector cost pressures by creating price distortions and encouraging health service/product over-utilization; and yet they have the audacity to argue this is a "market" failure. I'll discuss this in more detail in my next part of the series.
Choose Life
Moved to tears over Mommy's performance...
Facebook Corner
(from LFC). heey dear liberitarians i have a question , since laisser faire capitalism is so good and right , why there isn't even just one country that has this model ? greetings from morocco
The invisible hand makes authority irrelevant, and tyranny resists change. The better question is why economic freedom important? A generally higher standard of living.
(from LFC) Am I a hypocrite for taking out student loans for grad school? On the one hand, the populace is forced to lend the money, so it's government coercion at gunpoint, very similar to welfare. On the other hand, if it wasn't for the loans, the prices would be so low I would not need the loans in the first place. Plus they have a very high interest rate 7% and I am going to repay them? So am I a hypocrite (because I'm libertarian)? Or do I have no other choice because the costs are so high (because of the govt loan program?
The government meddles throughout the economy, pushing up costs. Take the fact that government manipulates food costs, wage policy, healthcare, the housing market, etc. All my work career I've paid FICA; when I'm retirement age, will I be a hypocrite in applying for benefits? The individual consumer is not responsible for failed government policy. (You might explore loan terms from the private sector, lower-cost programs, campus employment, etc., but as Bastiat points out, "Treat all economic questions from the viewpoint of the consumer, for the interests of the consumer are the interests of the human race.")
(from LFC) Hey, I'm doing a research paper on how US policy causes more terrorism attacks and threats. Could you post a status asking people to post articles on the comment section that would further enhance my paper's point? Thanks!
I might start out with early warnings from the Founding Fathers against getting caught in European disputes, Dwight Eisenhower's clarion call about the military-industrial policy. The issue is not that US policy "causes" terrorist responses, but there are unintended consequences to intervention. Propping up a hated authoritarian regime or collateral damage to innocent civilians or their property builds resentment. These enemies, unable to attack the powerful US military directly, may seek out high-profile soft targets for propaganda purposes.
(from LFC) I understand business' interest in investing in roads to and from their business, and maybe business collectively to invest in roads for monetary gain.
However, where how do rural towns who have a relatively low population and no corporate or large business structure get the funds to connect rural town to rural town?
I understand if one town has a Wal-Mart and 5 or 6 close towns come their often to shop; Wal-Mart has an interest to build roads to get more customers. But, small towns, with no business initiative to build highways to connect the towns especially if they are separated 20-30 miles a part.
There are various economic and social incentives to establish roads connecting properties (say, farms) to towns (church, doctors, schools, supplies, etc.) or transportation hubs; it's not just the import of goods and services but the export (say, of farm products). I am not a real estate developer, but if I wanted to sell parcels, one of the value-added things I could do to attract higher prices is to make the property easily accessible.
 |
| Via LFC |
 |
| Via LFC |
(from SIS) Tomorrow is that statist of all holidays. That day where people knock on people's door asking for free candy and if they say no, throw eggs at them and damage their property; but this is ok since the people doing it are wearing silly costumes. If you really want to scare people for Halloween be something people aren't expecting others to be-ever--yourself. -DR
I would think federal holidays, where statists get paid by taxpayers not to work, are the most statist holidays. But if you really want to scare people, greet people at the door saying "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help"....
(from LFC) I'm wondering how in a completely free market economy, with no government regulation, how would one curtail pollution? I'm not talking about global warming crap, but like dumping shit into rivers and burying nuclear waste.. it happens now even with government regulation... without it, there is nothing stopping it.
I might add here that if we have privatization of a river, pollution by one source would affect the property rights of others: it would be arbitrated under whatever implemented system of justice.
(from Sen. Coburn) In Case You Missed It: Congress is to blame for state of maintenance backlog at our treasured National Parks. When we started the parks system, we had 35 national parks - real treasures for the country. We now have 401. Let's take care of the parks we have before adding more.
Every time the public sector "manages" anything, it screws up (e.g., infrastructue). Privatize it all. The idea that the parks are "free" is ludicrous; Visitors/users should not freeload off the taxpayer.
(from LFC) Doublethink: When you hold two contradictory ideas in your head at the same time. Popularized by George Orwell in "1984" as the technique government uses to control the party loyals. An example: Obama claims that there is sufficient oversight of the NSA and he can vouch for the constitutionality of its actions. Obama also claims that he has absolutely no knowledge of the NSA's doings and can't be blamed for them. (Teal)
Man up! If it happens on your watch, you're responsible. Deal with it. What have you done to ensure this nonsense never happens again?
 |
| Via LFC |
 |
| Via SIS |
The law of supply and demand; an unaffordable road makes no money. Plus high tolls would attract other road builders. "Progressive trolls" are economic illiterates...
(from Ron Paul) Thanks for your submissions pertaining to my episode "There's TOO MUCH Cooperation in D.C.". 40% of you thought that both Democrats and Republicans are responsible for the ballooning deficit. You are correct. They both start unnecessary wars and they both have an addiction to printing money all while gouging the middle class. Let's spread this message and help #TurnOnTheTruth!
Ron, stop going for the cheap pops. We know what party started involvement in 4 of the bloodiest wars of the twentieth century, in whose administration the IRS and Fed came into being, which President intimidated SCOTUS into surrendering economic liberty (Footnote 4), which party initiated the New Deal and the Great Society, created the Department of Education, etc. I'm not arguing the GOP is blameless; part of the problem is voters want to believe in Santa Claus.
 |
| Via SIS |
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Steve Kelley and Townhall |
Political Humor
Musical Interlude: My Ipod Shuffle Series
Paul Anka, "Hold Me 'Til the Morning Comes"
