August 6, 2008
Michael Moore, call your Office!
Gimme that old time socialized medicine. BBC:
The cleanliness of most NHS hospitals in England is threatened by frequent invasions of rats, fleas, bedbugs, flies and cockroaches, a report claims.Figures released by the Conservatives show that 70% of NHS Trusts brought in pest controllers at least 50 times between January 2006 and March 2008.
Hat-tip: Samizdata
May 27, 2008
Wi-Fi Allergy
Stop the earth - I want off.
Seriously, didn't most people have that same reaction to the 1970's nutjobs who wanted to outlaw drilling for oil in this country because it was "dirty?" Leave the idiots alone and look what it gets you - politicians who say things like "gasoline prices are not based on supply and demand, they're being driven up by reckless speculators and obscene oil company profits" and "we can't drill our way out of this problem" when, in fact, that is the ONLY way to bring gasoline prices down. And it makes us "less dependent on foreign oil" at the same time.
April 25, 2008
What Else Am I Guaranteed?
Senator Wyden has a new website: Stand Tall for America
Every American should be guaranteed health care that can never be taken away. Not by your boss, not by the government, not by an insurance company.And Senator Ron Wyden's Healthy Americans Act will do just that.
Join the grassroots movement for universal health care.
The front page has a clever video about all the people staying in bad jobs for their health care -- kind of Monster-dot-com-ish but pretty clever by U. S. Senate standards.
I need not preach to the ThreeSources choir that health care coming from your employer comes from a surfeit of gub'mint intrusion, not paucity. Postwar price controls got us into this mess, yet Senator Wyden and "12 senators from both parties" think only government can get us out.
What else should Government guarantee me? I think I should have car insurance, whether I pay the premium, or drive drunk. I'M AN AMERICAN DAMMIT! And I don't think anybody should have to drink cheap beer. How 'bout it Ron, will you stand tall for us?
February 25, 2008
Socialized Medicine
That right wing rag, the New York Times, has published an article that is clearly designed to slow the adoption of universal health care. It seems that a 47 year old British Woman would like to purchase Avastin.
One such case was Debbie Hirst’s. Her breast cancer had metastasized, and the health service would not provide her with Avastin, a drug that is widely used in the United States and Europe to keep such cancers at bay. So, with her oncologist’s support, she decided last year to try to pay the $120,000 cost herself, while continuing with the rest of her publicly financed treatment.By December, she had raised $20,000 and was preparing to sell her house to raise more. But then the government, which had tacitly allowed such arrangements before, put its foot down. Mrs. Hirst heard the news from her doctor.
“He looked at me and said: ‘I’m so sorry, Debbie. I’ve had my wrists slapped from the people upstairs, and I can no longer offer you that service,’ ” Mrs. Hirst said in an interview.
“I said, ‘Where does that leave me?’ He said, ‘If you pay for Avastin, you’ll have to pay for everything’ ” — in other words, for all her cancer treatment, far more than she could afford.
Officials said that allowing Mrs. Hirst and others like her to pay for extra drugs to supplement government care would violate the philosophy of the health service by giving richer patients an unfair advantage over poorer ones.
Patients “cannot, in one episode of treatment, be treated on the N.H.S. and then allowed, as part of the same episode and the same treatment, to pay money for more drugs,” the health secretary, Alan Johnson, told Parliament.
I remember the original HillaryCare's having a $1,000 fine to people who paid for private treatment. I watched the debate the other night and she still assures the Democrat faithful that her plan was killed by the HMOs and special interests. I seem to remember the $1000 fine.
Speaking of health care utopias, I hope everyone looks at Michael Stastny's pictures from Cuba.
Hat-tip: Mankiw for the NHS/Avastin patient and Megan McArdle guesting at Instapundit for the Cuba pix.
UPDATE: Samizdat Philip Chaston links to the Inter-Faith Gown. The NHS cannot provide or allow the purchase of modern medicine -- but they can cater to 7th Century sensibilities "to preserve the modesty of patients whose culture or religion requires them to be more modestly clothed."
January 30, 2008
Body Trafficking
Who knew there was a market? (well, I did)
A nurse admitted Wednesday he plucked body parts from 244 corpses in Philadelphia and helped forge paperwork so the parts, some of them diseased, could be used in unsuspecting patients.Lee Cruceta, 35, of Monroe, N.Y., was the lead cutter in a group that trafficked in more than 1,000 stolen body parts for the lucrative transplant market, authorities say.
Cruceta pleaded guilty Wednesday to conspiracy, taking part in a corrupt organization, abuse of a corpse and 244 counts each of theft and forgery.
Prosecutors also expect accused ringleader Michael Mastromarino, 44, of New York, to plead guilty, Assistant Philadelphia District Attorney Bruce Sagel told a judge.Mastromarino, a former oral surgeon, paid funeral directors $1,000 per corpse, then sold the parts to tissue banks, Sagel said. The body parts fetched up to $10,000 apiece, though the tissue banks resold them to hospitals for many times that amount, he said.
Actually, I think if more people were allowed to sell the body parts (post-death, where applicable), there would be a lot more available for transplants etc.
Gruesome? Well... not as much as other "procedures" in medicine today. Certainly not as icky as the under-the-radar corpse trade.
Think about it.
You could sell a kidney, while you're still alive. Yes, the kidneys would go to the highest bidders. But as more kidneys came on the market (we've all got a spare), prices would fall.
Right now your drivers license says "ORGAN DONOR"... what if it said "ORGAN SELLER"?
Hospitals would then get a cut (heh) of the cost for handling fees. Brokers would be around to take care of the transaction. An entire on-the-up-and-up economy would be born.
Side benny is that people would take care of their gear to fetch the best price.
"Low cholesterol?" Clean bill of sale.
"Low weight?" Mo' money.
"No smoking?" Cough up the cash.
Altruism only gets you so far, that's why we have waiting lists... but people are dying all the time.
I don't believe the govt has thought about it, but by accident, it is prevented. You see, you REALLY want that flat screen tv. Mkay. That lazy spouse of yours without health insurance, a job or life insurance ... they'll be taking a ride down the stairs on their neck so you can harvest his 'net worth'.
Got a lot of kids? Remember that scene in Monty Python's 'The meaning of life' where the father tells the kids that he cannot afford to feed them so he is selling them to the Pharma Industry as test subjects? Yep.
Posted by: mdmhvonpa at January 31, 2008 9:01 AMJanuary 14, 2008
RomneyCare: Coming to Colorado
Part of me worries about the Centennial State; the rest of me has given up. We have a Democrat Governor, both houses under Democratic rule, every tax increase passes easily, a massive light rail project passed in 2004.
Next is RomneyCare. Just because it is an abject failure in Massachusetts, why not have it here? (Justice Brandeis, call your office!)
Boulderite Brian T. Schwartz, Ph.D. calls it "Collective Punishment" in TCSDaily.
When government policies increase insurance costs, the first to drop coverage are the young and healthy. Those remaining in the insurance pool are at higher risk to incur medical expenses, so premiums rise again, which again drives out the healthiest remaining customers. It takes some nerve to support policies that make insurance prohibitively expensive and then make it a crime not to purchase insurance.Compulsory insurance is based on collective punishment, a perverted form of justice found where troops patrol the streets and spitballs go splat. It punishes both the insured and uninsured for the misdeeds of politicians. Legislators should stop scapegoating the uninsured for the mess they've perpetuated. They should repeal legislation that inhibits the free market from delivering affordable high-quality medical care.
UPDATE: (Make lemonade Dept.) I found a good website: Colorado Freedom Report. Welcome to the blogroll.
Rendell's trying to pass the same thing in PA! Surprised Alex didn't jump on this.
Posted by: TrekMedic251 at January 14, 2008 10:04 PMDecember 4, 2007
Enforcement
Senator John Edwards is a fount of clarification for state coercion in Health Care. His primary opponents enjoy counting the uninsured that their plans will cover, and the number of children -- all of this polls well.
Coercion, however, is enforced at the point of a gun. Credit Sen. Edwards for bringing that up. He was the first to say that we'd have mandatory checkups, and ThreeSources readers are aware of his plan to use the IRS for enforcement (some tiny law blog from Tennessee may have mentioned it as well...) Now, blog hater Joseph Rago wonders, in the Political Diary, "Will There Be Health Care Prisons?"
Blame John Edwards for the health-care bickering between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.In February, Mr. Edwards offered an elaborate "universal" insurance plan that pulled the triangulating Mrs. Clinton to the left; in September, she introduced a virtually identical me-too plan. Then Mr. Edwards moved still further left to put some daylight between himself and his rivals. Last week, he started talking up how he'd actually enforce the so-called "individual mandate." A law would require every American to sign up for health insurance. But what if a lot of people can't afford it or don't want to pay for it?
Most Democrats, with their gauzy promises, don't want to argue about such practicalities, least of all Mrs. Clinton. But Mr. Edwards now says he'll turn the IRS into a quasi-police agency for health care. When individuals and families file their taxes, they'll have to provide proof of insurance. If not, they'll be financially penalized or have their wages garnished for "back premiums with interest and collection costs."
And Mrs. Clinton? Instead of responding by outlining her own version of an "or else" mechanism, she skillfully pivoted, deflecting Mr. Edwards's assault directly onto Barack Obama. In a withering speech in Iowa last week, she accused Mr. Obama of "betraying the Democratic Party's principles" by not backing an individual mandate in his own plan. In a conference call with reporters on Friday, Clinton campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle continued the assault, demanding that the Obama camp take down a "completely false" TV commercial claiming its plan would "cover everyone."
Amid the slashing attacks on Mr. Obama, of course, absent are any specifics about how a Clinton administration would enforce its individual mandate.
The problem is not a theoretical one. In Massachusetts, the only state with such a mandate in place, only about 10,000 of the 215,000 uninsured who aren't eligible for subsidies have enrolled so far. But Mrs. Clinton is not just trying to avoid discussing an unpleasant consequence of her plan. She's also manufacturing a "character" issue to use against the attractive Mr. Obama. Meanwhile, John Edwards is the only one giving voters fair warning about what Democratic health-care ambitions would mean in reality.
December 3, 2007
Rubber Glove Audit
Protein Wisdom suggests what the form will look like. I keep thinking this is a parody -- but they wouldn't parody Senator Edwards on abcnews, would they?
Under the Edwards plan, when Americans file their income taxes, they would be required to submit a letter from an insurance provider confirming coverage for themselves and their dependents.If someone did not submit proof of coverage, the Internal Revenue Service would notify a newly established regional or state-based health-care agency (which Edwards has dubbed a Health Care Market).
Those regional agencies would then evaluate whether the uninsured individual was eligible for Medicare (which covers those over 65), Medicaid (which covers the indigent), or S-CHIP (the State Children's Health Insurance Program which targets the working poor).
If the individual was not eligible for either of those existing public programs, the regional-health care agency would enroll the individual into the lowest cost health-care plan available in that area. The lowest-cost option could be a new Medicare-like public option or a private insurance plan.
Wow.
November 5, 2007
Mankiw Tackles the "Sorta True"
Greg Mankiw has an article in the NYTimes Business section today on health care. The Harvard Prof says the problem with statistics is not so much the patently false ones, but the ones that are true but misleading. He then debunks without contradicting:
STATEMENT 1 The United States has lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality than Canada, which has national health insurance.
STATEMENT 2 Some 47 million Americans do not have health insurance.
-- and, my favorite --
STATEMENT 3 Health costs are eating up an ever increasing share of American incomes.
But increasing expenditures could just as well be a symptom of success. The reason that we spend more than our grandparents did is not waste, fraud and abuse, but advances in medical technology and growth in incomes. Science has consistently found new ways to extend and improve our lives. Wonderful as they are, they do not come cheap.Fortunately, our incomes are growing, and it makes sense to spend this growing prosperity on better health. The rationality of this phenomenon is stressed in a recent article by the economists Charles I. Jones of the University of California, Berkeley, and Robert E. Hall of Stanford. They ask, “As we grow older and richer, which is more valuable: a third car, yet another television, more clothing — or an extra year of life?”
Mr. Hall and Mr. Jones forecast that the share of income devoted to health care will top 30 percent by 2050. But in their model, this is not a problem: It is the modern form of progress.
Joint hat-tip: Insty and Everyday Economist
October 18, 2007
SCHIP: Fighting Back (against poor childern)
A guest editorial (paid link) in the Wall Street Journal today offers a good, pragmatic response to the SCIHP imbroglio. This point has been made but not emphasized: we know the mean ol' Republicans hate poor kids and want to see them starved and denied health care and all that, but Grace-Marie Turner asks "Will this expansion help or hurt the poorer children the program was designed to serve?"
The answer isn't encouraging.Already, two-thirds of children who do not have health insurance are eligible for federal help through either Schip or Medicaid. Congress's first priority should be to make sure these poorer, uninsured children are taken care of. Yet states have struggled to get these children enrolled, which means that if there is a stampede to add higher-income kids to Schip, the poorer kids will likely continue to get left behind.
This is why the administration wants states to first enroll 95% of the children now eligible (those in families living on wages that are under 200% of poverty) before they open the program to higher-income kids.
The bill Congress passed, and the president vetoed, overturns that requirement -- an implicit acknowledgment that higher-income children will be the focus of the expansion. Consider that the bill would allow New York to cover kids in families who make up to $83,000 a year, something that would pull federal dollars away from less affluent states so that New York could provide taxpayer-funded health insurance to children in middle-income families.
I suggest this as a good time to fly the pragmatism flag. Earlier Turner says "[T]his debate is not over whether to give poor kids health care, or even over whether this program should continue. Everyone agrees that it should." and I thought "she doesn't read ThreeSources."
Yet, I think the hard-liners are going to get their ideological asses kicked, if they are seen to deny health care to poor kids. Arguments about crowding our private insurance are compelling to me but it's a tough sell. The fact that President Bush wants to cover the poor kids before considering expansion up the income ladder is a good -- and salient -- point, when one is badly needed.
JK champions pragmatism as the best strategy to stop government health care for the masses but misses the facts that a) we're already there to large degree and b) it's pragmatism that's made it possible.
"First enroll 95% of children now eligble instead of the 66% already enrolled." And then, I suppose, there's no objection to raising the eligiblity bar still higher?
And to be eligible now you need not be in poverty. Your family can have the resources of TWO impoverished families all to itself and still get the free ride. Not to mention the express escalator that the "Federal Poverty Level" has been on since the '70s.
Pragmatically, it won't be long before Jenna and Barbara Bush are "poor kids."
Posted by: johngalt at October 18, 2007 3:13 PMI had a hunch that you might not be on board, jg.
Probably not worth rehashing every argument over the last few years around here, but I am seeing that:
-- The collectivists have the perfect demagoguery vehicle here.
-- It is up for renewal, presenting a perfect time to try and expand it.
-- You have zero, nada, zip chance of not renewing it with a small expansion.
Again, I am prepared to fight at the margins, knowing that it means conceding the ground already lost. Overriding the veto or giving today's Democratic party a filibuster proof majority would not help the cause of freedom. An attempt to scale this back will lead to one or both of those unfavorable outcomes.
After the Rockies won both games of a home double header versus the Dodgers on September 18th dagny asked me, "Do you think the Rockies will make the playoffs?" I said, "No. Their chances are slim squared."
That's not quite as bad as "zero, nada, zip chance" but they were still long odds that paid out. I've learned not to say "never."
Posted by: johngalt at October 19, 2007 2:48 PMOctober 10, 2007
Now, That's Pragmatism!
Megan McArdle (talk about a blogger made good -- I once laughed at Atlantic for picking up Andrew Sullivan and Wonkette. Consider this august publication redeemed).
Before the parenthetical detour, I was saying McArdle has some good questions on SCHIP
That said, even if Graeme Frost is basically middle-class-ish, that wouldn't be a stunning indictment of S-Chip. No system is without error; all will let through some people who don't deserve benefits, and miss some people who do. That there has been one error, in either direction, is not necessarily an indictment of the system, but merely an indication that we live in an imperfect world. Moreover, in the case of children, I'm perfectly content to bias the system towards including too many undeserving children, rather than take the chance of missing too many deserving ones. I find S-Chip's practice of covering adults problematic, but frankly, the prospect that Graeme Frost might have gotten some undeserved healthcare ranks, on my list of things to worry about, somewhere between pandemic toe fungus, and finalizing the guest list for my Chicago Cubs World Series Victory Party.Reading the comments on this, I have to ask conservatives and libertarians: is this really the hill you think we should die on? I do understand your objections to the program, but an informal survey of swing voters, in their current incarnation as my mother, indicates that this is killing you with the moderates. Save it for national health care next year, is what I'm saying. This debate is framing the issue in a way that is going to make things harder, not easier, when Hilarycare is on the table again.
I think she makes some large errors. The discussion is NOT about selling assets to qualify for a place on the Federal teat, it is about asking me to pay for the health care of a person who is clearly better off than I am.
But I must salute her donation to pragmatism. I have held, like Kimberly Strassel, that this is the place to draw the line, because the collectivist medical crowd can gradually move more onto public rolls. What Strassel calls "HillaryCare on the installment plan."
On the other hand Mr. Truman, perhaps the dozens of chicken GOP House members have a point. Maybe you cannot win this one, and if you want your seat to play another day, you can't come out directly against "poor children." This pragmatist is willing to die on this hill, but if McArdle is not on the team, how can we expect less involved and intelligent people to see the issue?
Hat-tip: Instapundit
October 9, 2007
The Frost Contretemps
I am really enjoying this story. It's not quite as good as Dan Rather's forged documents, but it s at least as good a blog story as Beauchamp's Bogus TNR pieces.
The Frosts are the folks who put their 12-year old child up to deliver the Democratic response to the President. First word came out that the parents might be well off: their house is twice the size of mine in a more affluent neighborhood, and the lad’s siblings attend a $20,000/yr private school. Yet I have to pay for his health care.
The rebound blogwave was an attack from lefty bloggers at mean righty bloggers who would have no compassion for a young accident victim or a family that was struggling. Michelle Malkin cruised by the house and admitted that $400,000 "seemed high" as an appraisal of the family abode. The left called her a stalker, et cetera, et cetera...
The rebound backlash is the best. Riehl World View digs a little deeper, and finds a typical liberal family. He went to Princeton, has a classic '56 T-bird, has a nice home that he has allowed to run down, and chooses to run a woodworking shop rather than more lucrative, but less pleasing work that his Princeton degree might provide.
Yes, the Frost children are victims, but not of conservatives. They look more like victims of a couple of mostly spoiled brats who became parents and never felt compelled to take responsibility for themselves when it came to the bottom line on that. There are poor people in America who need help, particularly as regards Health care. The point is, the family above shouldn't be and simply aren't among them. Call Dad next time you want some bucks FH. And kindly leave the rest of America's collective wallet the hell alone.Or, hey, get a second job with benefits. I've done that more than once in my life when I needed the cash. And do it before you let Graeme tell the media how much you struggle to take care of him, because there are enough people in America who really do struggle with these issues. And when they take a look at your lot in life they are left far from impressed and unmoved to cough up one thin dime so you can enjoy afternoons playing with your lathe, or whatever the hell else it is you do in your factory.
This is a better story than being rich. Either way, it makes no sense why I should have to pay for this guy's family's health care.
You may want to clarify. Many of the facts from Riehl your hitting are actually about the Grandfather, not the father. Overall point remains, but people will hit you for the inaccuracy. Looks like Senior was $ucce$$ful, so Junior rejected that material wealth only to find out that material wealth is pretty nice to have when you have a family.
Posted by: Mike at October 10, 2007 7:39 PMPoint taken -- I thought that Dad had the T-bird, not Grandpa. I still think they didn't choose the best spokeskid. If they looked really hard, some Democrat might know a 12-year old who's folks did not have every advantage (maybe the pool boy, or one of the servants...)
Posted by: jk at October 10, 2007 7:52 PMOctober 8, 2007
None Dare Call it Demagoguery III
This is unbelievable! Mark Steyn tells of a Freeper who does the Googling that American Journalists won't do. Remember that 12 year old who delivered the Democratic response to the President the weekend before last? The poor young lad was in an accident and needs the Federal Government to pay his health insurance.
If it ever occurred to Matthew Hay Brown, the Sun's "reporter", to look into just what kind of "woodworking" Mr Frost did, he managed to suppress the urge."icwhatudo" at Free Republic, however, showed rather more curiosity than the professional reporter paid to investigate the story and did a bit of Googling. Mr Frost, the "woodworker", owns his own design company and the commercial property it operates from, part of which space he also rents out; they have a 3,000-sq-ft home on a street where a 2,000-sq-ft home recently sold for half a million dollars; he was able to afford to send two children simultaneously to a $20,000-a-year private school; his father and grandfather were successful New York designers and architects; etc. This is apparently the new definition of "working families":
A bit more Googling found a health plan in that tony zip code for $482/month.
Standard disclaimer II: I'm sorry the lad was in an accident. I cannot say that the parents do not have financial problems, and I don't know if they were eligible for the $482 policy. But I do not see why I have to buy their insurance.
Hat-tip: Insty, who also links to a story on this by Don Surber.
October 7, 2007
None Dare Call it Demagoguery II
 | Fred Barnes ridiculed the Democrats for having a 12-year old deliver the rebuttal to the President's radio address last week. As Barnes said, they go mad when a Republican tries to use the flag or a soldier to promote policy, but they think nothing of using children as props.
Shame on this child's parents (living in Boulder County, I know hundreds who would stoop this low). Are there no honest interlocutors left in the Democratic Party? |
| Photo credit: AP | |
October 4, 2007
None Dare Call It Demagoguery
Just kidding, everybody knows it's demagoguery, but when "the children" are at stake, the Democrats cannot stop. They're like moths demagoging to a flame. Joseph Rago writes in OpinionJournal's Political Diary:
The crocodile outrage flowed fast and deep yesterday after President Bush's promised veto of the Schip bill that would have vastly expanded a federal subsidy for children's health care.Ted Kennedy called it "the most inexplicable veto in the history of the country." Barack Obama decried a "callousness of priorities." Nancy Pelosi flirted with the edges of self-parody, saying: "President Bush used his cruel veto pen to say 'I forbid 10 million children from getting the health benefits they deserve.'"
Of course, the veto will not actually deprive any current enrollees (10% of whom are adults) of medical care. President Bush made sure of that when he signed a continuing resolution funding the program until an accommodation is reached. Count on this fact remaining little noticed amid the current political circus.
Democrats believe they have a strong shot at overriding the veto, but will wait a week or two to continue milking the controversy and to solidify a campaign issue for 2008. Of the eight House Democrats who opposed the expansion and three others who didn't vote, the leadership has already rolled five of them. That means at least 14 Republicans need to turn over as well, out of 151 in the opposition.
To that end, lobbying groups including Families USA, MoveOn.org, AARP, SEIU and AFSCME, as well as the Democratic Party, are mounting an advertising campaign targeting vulnerable Republicans, mainly in swing districts. No doubt we'll see more of the same end-of-days hysteria.
Harry Reid in particular has been trying to shame Republicans by name, singling out Rep. Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland, the only member of his delegation to vote nay. In response, Mr. Bartlett thanked Mr. Reid "for recognizing that I cast the only correct vote about Schip in the state of Maryland.... Democrats are demanding that Schip be expanded to have government-controlled, taxpayer-paid health care for millions of children who already have private health coverage."
In a soundbite, Mr. Bartlett has exactly described what the battle is all about.
September 28, 2007
With Republicans Like These...
The WSJ Ed Page dishes out a heapin' helpin' of disapprobation for feckless GOP legislators who are very quick to buckle on the Schip bill. The lead editorial (paid link, sorry!) points out that the Democrats' plan would have some families qualify for both Schip (the Democrats' plan for the poor) and the AMT (the Democrats' extra tax for the rich).
That's because the real Democratic game here is to turn Schip into a new middle-class entitlement. Earlier this year, Hillary Clinton -- who goes out of her way to emphasize Schip as a key mechanism in her new "universal" health-care reform -- introduced Congressional legislation that would raise Schip eligibility to 400%, currently $82,600 for a family of four. That move would qualify no less than 71% of American children for public assistance.This would also lead to the bizarre circumstance in which a family would be entitled to Schip benefits while also paying the Alternative Minimum Tax that is supposed to capture "the rich." According to a Heritage Foundation analysis, if Schip is extended nationally to 400%, about 70,000 families would be rich enough to pay the AMT while also on Schip. So what Democrats take away with higher taxes under the AMT, they would vouchsafe to return in government health care for all. The era of big government is back, and bigger than ever.
The Senate has already folded, thanks to "brave Sir Rodnies" Hatch (R Utah) and Grassley (R-Ethanol). The house holds a veto-proof opposition, so we will be spared passage if not demagoguery.
Where can we find a few more good, mean old Republicans who don't want to give health care to kids?
F*** Hatch. Bluntly, he's one of the biggest GOP d***heads today, masquerading as a "conservative" when all he is, besides a pharmaceutical tool, is R-Big Government.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at September 28, 2007 1:40 PMI cannot argue with you on Sen. Hatch, but it is funny that I was cursing Grassley as I was posting this, thinking something roughly along the lines of "F*** Grassley. Bluntly, he's one of the biggest GOP d***heads today, masquerading as a "conservative" when all he is, besides an agribusiness tool, is R-Big Government."
Posted by: jk at September 28, 2007 4:12 PMSeptember 24, 2007
One Angry (at Hillary) Mother
My beloved dagny wrote this months ago and after viewing Hillary's historic appearance on Fox News Channel last Sunday was compelled to update it and demand placement in today's issue of Threesources.com (no, I did not give her the "standby rate.")
We watched Hillary on Fox News Sunday this morning and listened to her explain why “we” need to ensure that every American has health insurance. I found myself angry yet again that many Americans don’t seem to get the idea that if the government is providing something, ANYTHING, the taxpayers (like me) are footing the bill.My first child was born when I was 36. I made good decisions relating to child-bearing. I waited until I had a husband worthy of fathering my children. I waited until we could afford to care for our children without relying on others. I waited until I could provide appropriate medical insurance for myself and my children without relying on others. I dealt with the issues related to, “advanced maternal age,” because I waited for these things.
Now let’s consider someone who has made different decisions. If the unwed, poor, uninsured, teenage mother comes into my house and steals $100, or even $5, she will be arrested and put in jail. If however, the government takes my $100 and gives it to her this is a good thing?
The unwed mother is rewarded by the government for her bad decision making while I am punished for my good decision making. Is this the incentive system we wish to encourage in this country? These things became particularly clear to me and my feelings in the matter became much stronger when we started a family. Dammit, it’s my money and I earned it, and I wish to spend it on MY children.
Why isn’t every mother in the country angry?
I realize, I’m probably preaching to the choir at threesources – maybe I should send this to Hillary.
Thanks to the Democrats it is no longer true that "It is best to prepare for the days of necessity." Now it is best to go on strike for free, lifetime healthcare.
I hate picking fights with Dagny. It's unseemly and I always lose. I think the ThreeSources choir (rehearsal this Thursday, don't be late) will appreciate your positions. They should -- they're right.
However...
Pragmatist-in-chief has to point out that your argument is a political loser. Do you really object to paying for health care for poor kids? Like President Reagan, I'm cool with using the Federal largess to provide a safety net. We can argue about moral hazard (and we might) but that train left the station in FDR's administration and it is not scheduled to pass through here.
President Bush is making a courageous stand against withering demagoguery to veto the Schip bill, and I do not know how many less courageous GOP legislators will hold.
Governor Corzine likes to hand out free health care to those above the median income; Senator Clinton wants Medicare to be a choice for every American, irrespective of age or income.
Against this fight, I find your hard line position to be politically ineffective. There is a real fight at the margins and those who want to re-argue the New Deal are not going to be effective on the new front lines.
In the war against America's slide from the USA to the 'USSA' we must have strategic and tactical elements. While JK is correct that daily combat is necessary to hold budget growth and program expansion to 3.5% per year instead of the 4.0% (or more) that Democrats would have if unopposed, such a strategy is never going to result in an actual REDUCTION of the welfare state - not to mention its demise.
The value of dagny's rant is in the question "Why?"
"Why isn't EVERY mother in the country angry?"
Why is railing against government theft from individuals on behalf of other individuals "a political loser?"
Dagny knows, she just chose not to say: Altruism. Robin Hood. Failure to understand (or to acknowledge) basic accounting. Unprecedented national wealth that makes penny pinching obsolete and leaves the door wide open for governor Corzine and Senator Clinton to leverage the teachings of Pope Benedict and every single one of his forebears and their minions to siphon off "just a little" and "just a little more" for a "safety net."
Personally I'd like to see the "safety net" dismantled because it became unpopular and not because it became so onerous that it destroyed the wealth that made it possible. That's where the strategic weapon is required.
TEACH people that they are not their brother's keeper.
ADVISE them to sacrifice themselves for no man, nor accept any man's sacrifice for himself.
EMPOWER everyone with the knowledge that every grain of produce that he creates is rightly and morally his own, to do with as HE chooses, without a shred of guilt.
DISAMBIGUATE the ideas of voluntary charity and coerced "aid for the disaffected."
Then, and only then, may we banish the second "S" the philosophy of Socialism, that now effectively exists in the name and the soul of this, the greatest nation in the history of human kind. Make no mistake - America is great despite socialism, not because of it.
Posted by: johngalt at September 25, 2007 3:19 PMThe reviews come pouring in
Blog friend Perry chose not to suffer through any of the FIVE Sunday talk show appearances by Senator Clinton, but he effectively finds flaws in the health care plan that she touts.
I didn't see the interview, so I don't know if she repeated her claim that there would be no new bureaucracy necessary for her plan. [jk: I did. She did.] Who really believes that a plan costing $110 billion a year (meaning we can count on easily double that estimate) will require no new bureaucracy? Oh no, she says, no new bureaucracy, even though government will need a way to force you into the plan unless you want to work an underground job. Or is she technically speaking the truth, in the same way that Bill didn't create new taxes (or did he?). He merely increased them. So Hillary won't create a new bureaucracy -- she'll just expand the existing Department of Health and Human Services.
I did watch her Inevitableness on FOX News Sunday. As I emailed Perry, I don’t believe she’s picked up any policy or decency since she tried to nationalize 17% of GDP in 1993, but she has learned some politics – she says the right words to a compliant media and diffident public. This will be hard to stop.
September 18, 2007
Zero Tolerance, Zero Consequences
Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday that a mandate requiring every American to purchase health insurance was the only way to achieve universal health care but she rejected the notion of punitive measures to force individuals into the health care system."At this point, we don't have anything punitive that we have proposed," the presidential candidate said in an interview with The Associated Press. "We're providing incentives and tax credits which we think will be very attractive to the vast majority of Americans."
I wonder if that proof of insurance will be asked for before or after the proof of citizenship?
Incentives, tax credits and avoidance of prison will be very attractive to the vast majority of Americans. Sounds like a winner.
Posted by: jk at September 18, 2007 8:40 PMAh, but under her plan, you'll have to provide proof of insurance just to get a job (at least one the government knows about, otherwise you'll have to work underground like the illegals). And if you don't, boom, you'll be automatically enrolled.
Read her lips: no new bureaucracy!
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at September 20, 2007 1:16 PMHubris
I fear my free market brethren are getting a little cocky. We know we're gong to get massacred in the next election and that a raft of protectionist-socialists will be installed in Congress, we can see the darkness. Yet, there seems to be a confidence that the US will abjure government takeover of health care. I hope the confidence is well founded but would suggest a strong defense.
Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute dresses down Senator Clinton's "HillaryCare 2.0" (Hat-tip: Everyday Economist)
Here we go again. HillaryCare is back, and it’s apparent that Sen. Clinton has learned little since the American people overwhelmingly rejected her last attempt to overhaul the U.S. health care system. Once again her plan, which would cost $110 billion per year in new taxes, calls for greater government control over American health care. If her plan were to pass this time, it would mean higher taxes, lost jobs, less patient choice, and poorer quality health care.
Tanner makes several substantive points -- I am not criticizing his critique. Nor Karl Rove's. Rove has a guest ed in the WSJ today (free link) that enumerates the reasons to avoid Senator Clinton’s plan.
In short, the best health reform proposals will be those that recognize and build on the virtues of our market-based medical system. Sick people around the world come here because they can't get quality care in their home countries. Many health-care professionals come here to practice, leaving behind well-meaning health-care systems where government is in charge, bureaucrats make the decisions, and where the patient doesn't have the choice he or she does in the U.S.
HillaryCare may not have changed much, but I fear that the electorate has. Fifteen years of NYTimes editorials, and the drumbeat of "40 million uninsured," "45 million uninsured," "47 million uninsured..." have inculcated a crisis mentality.
Those who want to keep private mechanisms will be labeled deniers and will be forced to defend the status quo. Rove and Tanner lay out good points, but I think that political moderates are about ready to have the government take it over. And it is likely that they'll have politicians in 2009 who will be glad to deliver.
So tell me then, what does a political pragmatist do when "the art of the possible" leaves him with something completely unacceptable?
Posted by: johngalt at September 18, 2007 7:43 PMIf that is directed this pragmatist's way, you misread me. I am not counseling compromise. I am trying to rally the troops.
I hear an undertone in Rove, Tanner, and even Mayor Giuliani, that once you explain to the people that this is HillaryCare, they will again reject it.
I suggest that it is going to be a tough fight and that -- as usual -- all the emotional appeals and demagoguery will play into the hands of opponents. It will be tough to beat.
September 13, 2007
Must See TV
And it's not even Larry Kudlow.
John Stossel will interview Michael Moore and provide a (gasp!) free market view of health care on a 20/20 special this Friday night.
Government rationing health care in Canada is why when Karen Jepp went into labor with her quadruplets last month, she flew to Montana to have the babies. No nearby neonatal unit in Canada had room for her.And everyone is complaining about the millions of Americans who are uninsured. But is health insurance such a good thing? What if you had grocery insurance? You wouldn't care what things cost. Why buy hamburger? I'll just buy steak. Why use coupons? Why look for sales? I'll just buy … everything. My insurance company's paying. That increases costs, because when bills are paid with "other people's money," costs skyrocket.
Don't worry, I have some good news about some different approaches — ones that reduce costs and still make medicine good for patients.
Stossel has a guest editorial (free link) in the WSJ today to whet your appetite.
Friday night -- it should be good.
August 27, 2007
WSJ Steals from Me
I'm not complaining. Without the good folks at Dow Jones, I would have posted less than a third over the years.
Today, the lead Editorial steals my headline, "RomneyCare 2.0," and my thesis (paid link).
So this is a step forward for Mr. Romney on health policy, largely because it doesn't take Massachusetts as its model. Though he still regards that state's 2006 "universal" health insurance program as one of his signal achievements as Governor, his new proposal drops the most coercive elements, such as the individual mandate and the "pay or play" sanctions on businesses. Perhaps this intellectual progress is due to the influence of new Romney advisers Glenn Hubbard and John Cogan, both respected health-care economists.
[...]
One key difference with Rudy Giuliani, who has also proposed similar changes to the tax code, is that the former New York Mayor would allow for interstate insurance and Mr. Romney would not. Mr. Romney says that the logistical difficulties would become a "camel's nose" for national insurance regulations. Maybe so, but that is always a risk with federalism. A far worse camel's nose is the "universal" plan Mr. Romney championed in Massachusetts. As Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards put it, "If universal health care was good enough for Massachusetts, why isn't it good enough for the rest of the country?"It's not an unfair question. Mr. Romney's Bay State legacy is now praised by liberals as a prototype for national policy. That's done a great deal to set back the kind of tax reform that he now espouses. The issue for GOP primary voters to consider is why he went in such a different direction in Boston. Granted, a mere Governor couldn't restructure the federal tax code, and he was dealing with a far-left legislature. Yet his willingness to compromise in Massachusetts on core matters of principle, and then trumpet those statist policies as a "free-market" solution, raises questions about how far and easily he'd bend to a Democratic Congress.
Mr. Romney's conversion to free-market health-care thinking is nonetheless welcome -- assuming he believes it.
I hope they don't pick up my typographical errors...
I'm gonna be Billy Beck-style blunt here.
Romney, who the f*** are you to tell me that buying insurance from a company out-of-state has "logistical" problems? Where the f**** have you been for the last 12 years? Since the Internet really took off, it's proven that interstate commerce is as easy, if not easier, than driving down the street. I can use Esurance with far greater ease and speed than flipping through the Yellow Pages to find a new insurance agent (and wind up talking to some dumb rookie schmuck mangle my name).
Oh, that's right, Romney, the problem isn't for us, but for *you* and the rest of the government, because you just can't keep your grubby hands off our peaceful commerce. Congress has power to regulate interstate commerce, but that doesn't mean it *must* in every circumstance.
And why the f*** should we believe you, Romney, when you say you wouldn't coerce all Americans to buy health insurance, the same way you did to the people of Massachussetts?
And by the way, Romney, you can go f*** yourself, you goddamn maggot.
Also by the way, speaking of "logistical" problems in buying things across great distances: I'm waiting on two sizeable packages directly from Hong Kong. If I have any problems, I do returns via their Florida address. I could have easily spent three times what I did, yet I'm getting the same things. And to those who think I was "inefficient" or risked "logistical problems," they can shove it up their asses.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at August 28, 2007 2:03 PMI should clarify: if there *are* any "logistical" problems on my end with buying things from Hong Kong or buying insurance from someone in Pocatello, then I'm perfectly capable of dealing with such problems. By making the purchase, aren't I accepting any risks, by definition?
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at August 28, 2007 2:06 PMAt the risk of being a little less colorful. I really do find it comports to the difference I see in the two candidates. Giuliani gets the free market thing. I know that's not a powerful campaign slogan but it works for me.
Posted by: jk at August 28, 2007 3:08 PMThank NED for Perry. Our comments would be damned dry without him.
Now Perry, while you certainly have the right to *choose* to take risk in your life, all the other little comrade-Americans have the right to *choose* not to. After all, as I heard on NPR on this, the 2nd anniversary of the soon-to-be next federal holiday 'Katrina Day,' "Imagine how it must feel to be completely abandoned by *your own* government."
"It's *my* government, dammit! Take care of *me!*"
Posted by: johngalt at August 28, 2007 3:30 PMOh, I meant to say, I'm getting the same things as what could have been (in some cases, what used to be) domestically produced. Those amazing Chinese and their cheap electronics...
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at August 28, 2007 5:25 PMAugust 24, 2007
RomneyCare 2.0
Governor Romney (Mitt! 'round these parts) is announcing his health care plan today. And it is thankfully not an expansion of the mandated insurance plan enacted under his watch in "the Commonwealth." It sounds closer to the Bush and Giuliani plans. From the news pages of the Wall Street Journal (paid link):
In a speech before the Florida Medical Association in Hollywood, Fla., Mr. Romney will present a program that won't include new government mandates for individuals or companies to buy coverage, policies long considered anathema by many conservatives -- and that were features of the program enacted in Massachusetts.Instead, Mr. Romney plans to focus on tax breaks and streamlining regulations, policies his advisers say would essentially create a new, freer market for health insurance, driving down costs and providing incentives for individuals to buy their own plans. It is an approach President Bush and many Republican economists have embraced.
In today's speech, Mr. Romney will nod to his 2006 success in the Northeastern Democratic stronghold, aides say. But he will also aim to reassure conservatives by saying that a "one size fits all" solution isn't right for the 50 states. As for why he would use a different philosophy as president than as governor, they say he would have greater powers in the White House. "Massachusetts didn't have the federal tax code to play with," said Glenn Hubbard, a former Bush administration chief economist, now advising the Romney campaign.
We can all evolve. Seriously, this raises the Governor a few notches in my sights, though I will be interested to see how he rhetorically squares this with his previous plan.
He squares it by saying, "I did the best I could in Massachusetts where I was working with the most liberal legislature in the nation. In the case of the US Congress there are actually a few members who don't hold collectivism as their highest ideal. We might get a complete half of a loaf with that bunch."
John Edwards slammed the new Romney proposal saying, "If universal health care was good enough for Massachusetts, why isn't it good enough for the rest of the country?" My response to that would be "If we do something good one time why settle for not doing better?"
Mitt! is putting daylight between himself and the dour Mayor G. If Thompson doesn't announce within 30 days I'll wager that the nomination will go to the former governor of the Red Sox, not the Yankees.
Posted by: johngalt at August 24, 2007 3:42 PMI do appreciate a bold prediction, if not a pejorative description of my favored candidate. I admit it is early, but I feel the primary voters are not warming to the Gov. Today's FOX/Opinion Dynamics poll gives Hizzoner 28% against 11 for his Mittness.
I'm the pragmatist 'round these parts, but even I have to question whether a man who has changed positions as frequently as Governor Romney can be trusted to honor his philosophical commitments.
August 23, 2007
Free Health Care
At least Canadians can go to Montana to avoid free health care. This poor woman lives in the UK.
So. We have a woman in hospital waiting for the procedure that will abort her baby, a child she had wanted to bear and raise. Not a pleasant situation at any time, but what followed next was disconcerting to read about even for those who have grown weary of NHS "war stories".I first saw this in the Times (Baby's birth and death in lavatory of hospital with no trained staff), but there is a considerably more detailed account in This Is London (Mother forced to give birth alone in toilet of 'flagship' NHS hospital) (A very similar account appeared in the Daily Mail.)
Both headlines understate the peculiarly modern horror of what happened. The reader gets a picture of nurses trying to help, but out of their depth because Queen's Hospital did not at that time have a proper maternity unit.
Natalie Solent @ Samizdata, goes on to print accounts that nursing staff refused to help. Whether that is true or not, this is about as grisly a tale as you can hear. I'm no doctor but I cannot believe that this child would noy have had a good chance at being born alive in the US.
Remember this sad story anytime anybody says "Universal Heal..." but remember it when some Michael Moore claims our infant mortality rate is higher than Country X -- you can bet the price of next month's health care premium that Country X doesn't mind allowing a premature baby to die.
If Sicko is correct, this woman was refunded her transportation expenses as she left. I'm sure that was ameliorating.
August 22, 2007
We're Number Thirty-Seven!
John Stossel lays low a "2000 World Health Organization (WHO) rating of 191 nations and a Commonwealth Fund study of wealthy nations published last May" which ranked the U. S. 37th in health care.
First let's acknowledge that the U.S. medical system has serious problems. But the problems stem from departures from free-market principles. The system is riddled with tax manipulation, costly insurance mandates and bureaucratic interference. Most important, six out of seven health-care dollars are spent by third parties, which means that most consumers exercise no cost-consciousness. As Milton Friedman always pointed out, no one spends other people's money as carefully as he spends his own.Even with all that, it strains credulity to hear that the U.S. ranks far from the top. Sick people come to the United States for treatment. When was the last time you heard of someone leaving this country to get medical care? The last famous case I can remember is Rock Hudson, who went to France in the 1980s to seek treatment for AIDS.
So what's wrong with the WHO and Commonwealth Fund studies? Let me count the ways.
The US loses points for traffic accidents, lifestyle, violence and an "unfair" apportionment of health care. Stossel takes no prisoners (and scores points for invoking Friedman -- this is an ABC Journalist after all!)
Hat-tip: Mankiw
August 20, 2007
Some of That Free Health Care
In 1934, Canada saw the arrival of five identical quintuplet sisters. In 2007, a woman starting labor with quadruplets was flown 325 miles to Great Falls Montana to avoid free health care.
There is a difference between health care and health insurance. In capitalistic America, the concentration is on health. In socialistic Canada, the emphasis is on paying the bills. The story ended with how much the American hospital charged. Looks like a quarter-million bucks for a 5-day stay. Given that it was the quadruple birth of 2-pound babies two months premature, I’d say it was a bargain.This is not to piss all over Canada. Nice nation. Great people. I’m sure most Canadians like their health system. Just remember, though, that Canada’s backup system is in Montana. Americans spend 15% of their income on health care. That’s why Great Falls has enough neo-natal units to handle quadruple births — and a “universal health” nation doesn’t.
Don Surber also brings up the irony of being flown from Calgary, a modern metropolis with more than 1,000,000 people to Great Falls Montana (pop. 56,215).
August 9, 2007
Liberals Care
TNR's Jonathan Cohn (did I motion his great hair?) has bravely read the troglodytes at National Review and found the difference between liberals and conservatives. It seems liberals care. Cohn found this outrageous gotcha quote in NR:
For liberal proponents of the expansion, all that matters is the net increase in insured children.
Cohn knows when to pounce:
Exactly! Liberals (and plenty of non-liberals) want to expand S-CHIP because they are determined, first and foremost, to maximize the number of kids with health insurance. You see, kids with health insurance can get medical care without causing their families financial difficulty, which means they tend to get more preventative care, and so on and so on...
I'm not inclined to defend NR to the hilt. We haven't really found rapprochement after they lead the party yahoos on immigration. But I am convinced that that line was part of a nuanced article about the wisdom of getting more people on government care and crowding out private insurance. Cohn finds the "but" quote and disingenuously runs with it.
And we cannot link to TNR without noting more deafening silence on l'Affaire Beauchamp. Galley Slave Jonathan V. Last credits TNR with a coup for signing the exceptional-former-Buffy-writer Jane Espenson. I think it is great too, but wonder if their marketing department really wants to push the addition of a great fiction writer to the staff. Maybe next month...
August 3, 2007
Whadd're Ya Gonna Do For Me?
Somebody else be the optimist this week. I see the health care debate slipping away. Three random events have combined to give me a queasy feeling.
1) A relative who deeply distrusts Michael Moore and generally votes Republican saw "Sicko" with some friends and came away feeling that the movie made "many good points."
2) This video from the WaPo site. I deeply dislike RomneyCare and have avoided the Governor of the Commonwealth because of it. Look at this woman and her treatment by the WaPo. Then try to believe that we have any chance of avoiding socialized medicine.
I'm sorry for this woman's hardships. But she is -- let's be fair -- a crank. She begins with health care discussions, is unsatisfied even after the candidate interrupts his speech to answer her heckling, then disparages Hillary Clinton for not getting universal care passed as first lady, carpetbagging, then coveting the candidate's clothes and automobiles.
Yet she is not portrayed as a crank, she's an American woman who needs a little help.
3) Daniele Capezzone (I think he might be Italian) poignantly details the problems in Italy with Socialized Medicine, in a guest editorial for the Wall Street Journal (paid link). The problems are structural and political, having removed the system from the free market.
Part of the problem is that regional authorities manage most of Italy's health-care spending. A strike by health-care personnel has an immediate impact on the region, but the consequences of cutting the budget for medicines are only felt in the long term and distributed across the nation. Hence, local authorities continue to focus on personnel and infrastructure in an age when medical research has become the most efficient way to improve public health.Most recently, some Italian regions decided to drastically expand the scope of reference pricing, in open defiance of the central government. Reference pricing is used in most European countries to reduce government spending on medicine and is one of the reasons the Continent is lagging behind in pharmaceutical research. New drugs are grouped with existing drugs used to treat the same medical condition, and the government typically limits reimbursement to the cheapest price in the reference group. This way, patients are discouraged from using the most modern and more expensive medicine.
The Italian regions, however, are taking reference pricing one step further by grouping together drugs that do not necessarily have identical therapeutic effects. This way, the reference groups grow larger, and the regions can save more money. But patients are forced to choose between paying high out-of-pocket expenses or the risk of taking the wrong medicine.
Why does this trenchant rebuttal to Michael Moore depress me? Because few will read or understand it. Yet many will see -- and everybody will understand -- the plight of Ms. WhatareyougoingtodoforME?
I have to revisit it when I am cheerier. But maybe this pragmatist has to see that crappy, mandated, intrusive, RomneyCare is the only chance of avoiding HillaryCare. You tell people about employer-provided care as a holdover from post WWII wage controls and inefficiencies and you can see their eyes glaze over. Ms. WhatareyougonnadoforME strikes a chord.
August 2, 2007
What a Tool
Time for an ad hominem attack. Today's target is TNR's Jonathan Cohn. Cohn is a very serious minded young man. He has appeared on Kudlow & Company a few times and is the archetype of the young, idealistic, progressive journalist/activist. I'm sure he's a bright guy: TNR's a good gig. And, in full disclosure, I must admit to being extremely jealous of his hair. He makes Senator John Edwards look like, er, me.
I called him "a tool;" I am borrowing that epithet from Don Luskin. Half its meaning is that he is "a tool" for the progressive cause. On Kudlow, or in TNR, he can be counted on to spout whatever orthodoxy will promote the progressive cause. Wage disparity, the "debacle" in Iraq -- whatever the occasion calls for. The other half-meaning of that sobriquet is a little more of a personal attack. I think Luskin uses it in the same split sense.
Today, in TNR (free link -- I'm pretty sure I'm not re-subscribing in the near future), Cohn has a piece called RudyCare, but the subtitle says it all: "Why Giuliani wants millions of Americans to stay uninsured." Cohn, I see, has written a book on health care (sadly, at #6,878 it outsells Arnold Kling's). He wears his heart on his sleeve in his column. Any alternative or delay to full socialized medicine is a mistake.
Both Gratzer and Pipes are Canadian by birth. Both have spent enormous time warning people that health care in their country means long waits, no cutting-edge care, and maddening bureaucracy. And what's true of Canada, they suggest, would be true of any system giving insurance to everybody. "A universal health-care system run by government will reduce the quality and access to health care for all Americans," Pipes wrote for National Review Online in 2003. "It's a prescription for disaster."This is a pretty good harbinger of how the debate over universal health care will play out should it become a huge, all-encompassing fight in 2009, just like it was in 1993 and 1994 when Bill Clinton tried it. Conservatives will promise a little help, for some people, but mostly they'll tell scare stories about universal health care.
That's Canada, but it's swell in Switzerland and Sweden and France and we cannot bring it here fast enough to suit Cohn. Giuliani wants people to not have insurance (that bastard!), but the column strangely enough never does tell us why.
But we know. Republicans. They hate the poor.
Our health care system would undoubtedly be worse with universal care. The problems with our current system are directly as a result of government involvement, not the lack thereof.
Posted by: Harrison Bergeron at August 2, 2007 12:33 PMJuly 30, 2007
Individual Health Care
When I saluted the President's plan to provide $15,000 tax deductions, some good objections were raised: would a large deduction encourage over insurance; and, would tax-neutrality really shift people from employer to individual insurance?
The bias toward over-insurance is a good point. Since the plan is just an inchoate idea at this point, I think it is futile to discuss specific amounts.
The efficacy of moving people toward individual policies has two engines: employers and employees. Of course, many employees will want the status quo. If you have a good plan at a stable job, it is pretty attractive. If you worry about keeping your job and concomitantly your health insurance, you may see the wisdom in a portable, self funded plan. Even more likely, employers who are tired of the hassles or unable to afford group plans have every incentive to shift this onto their employees.
The WSJ News Pages (not my crazy friends on the Ed Page) carry the story today of a Utah man who uses the Heath Reimbursement Arrangement as a tax neutral vehicle for employer contributions to personal health insurance. The article is very interesting -- let me know if you'd like me to mail it to you. They have also posted a video with an overview:
I have an HRA type account where I work. It is great, but it requires me to guess my medical expenses every year. If I go under, I do not get the tax break, if I go over, I lose the money "poof -- bye bye!"
There are some problems with the Zane Benefits approach. It is built, explicitly, on the existence of State mandates to cover the uninsurable. I highlight it as an innovation and to show the intense employer and employee advantages to shifting to an individual model. Should this take off or be expanded, we would see unknowable innovations in individual insurance that would change the game.
May 6, 2007
Faster Please.
We really need a nationalized health care system.
Really. The government ought to provide it to us.
British doctors will take the historic step of admitting for the first time that many health treatments will be rationed in the future because the NHS cannot cope with spiralling demand from patients.In a major report that will embarrass the government, the British Medical Association will say fertility treatment, plastic surgery and operations for varicose veins and minor childhood ailments, such as glue ear, are among a long list of procedures in jeopardy.
Yeah, but we're going to do it right. Our Commissars will be better than Lenin's and Communism will work this time around...
Posted by: jk at May 6, 2007 1:45 PMMay 1, 2007
Supply-Side Health Care
Friend of ThreeSources Josh Hendrickson (The Everyday Economist) has an interesting article in TCSDaily today on the need to improve supply of health care as well as its funding.
The supply-side is riddled with inefficiencies. For example, the supply of doctors is restricted by licensing and medical school enrollments. Physicians also often act to exclude substitutes such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners. What's more, doctors effectively act as a collective monopoly because of the lack of price competition within their ranks. These restrictions on supply lead to higher prices for patients and higher incomes for doctors. This is especially inefficient considering that patients often lack price information until they receive their statement of benefits in the mail. Although the insurance system was quite different in 1963, many of the inefficiencies of the market are consistent with what is seen today.
Underwhelming Demand for Universal Health Care
Don Luskin points out a NYTimes story and wonders if the reporter would have been as sympathetic had the Bush Administration or an American corporation been "groping in the dark with other people’s money."
When Maine became the first state in years to enact a law intended to provide universal health care, one of its goals was to cover the estimated 130,000 residents who had no insurance by 2009, starting with 31,000 of them by the end of 2005, the program’s first year.So far, it has not come close to that goal. Only 18,800 people have signed up for the state’s coverage and many of them already had insurance.
“I think when we first started, in terms of making estimates, we really were kind of groping in the dark,” said Gov. John E. Baldacci, who this month proposed a host of adjustments
April 24, 2007
For The Children
I'm not a big Rush Limbaugh fan, but I will give the guy props. I think he was one of -- if not the -- first to recognize the leftist ploy to expand government "for the children." Voters don't want more welfare, but they'll support additional programs "for the children." repeat ad nauseum for any government command and control structure. As if there were a children's economy independent of their guardians.
The WSJ Ed Page finds Senator Clinton bragging about this strategy to her devoted following. Democrats seek to enlarge the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The editorial (free link) describes SCHIP as "Bill Clinton's health-care consolation prize after the implosion of HillaryCare. It expires in September without reauthorization, and Democrats are using the opening to turn it into another giant middle-class health-care entitlement. Call it HillaryCare on the installment plan."
Same song different verse. It is enacted to cover those too poor for adequate coverage without qualifying for Medicare, but is expanded to the middle class and is now threatening to become de facto Universal Care.
In other words, what began as a hard-cap grant to cover the working poor is evolving into an open-ended entitlement to cover whatever promises states make. And all under the political cover of helping "children." Instead of debating government-run health care on its merits, Democrats are building it step by step on the sly. Or as Mrs. Clinton put it in Nevada, "Make no mistake. This will be a series of steps."There's a lesson here for Republicans, who agreed to create Schip in a trade for Mr. Clinton's signature on their "balanced budget." Balanced budgets vanish in the blink of an election, while entitlements like Schip live on and expand as an ever-larger claim on taxpayers. Mark this down as another case in which Bill Clinton outfoxed Newt Gingrich. The least Republicans can do now is work to return Schip to its original, more modest purposes.
Those cruel bastards at the WSJ Ed Page don't seem to like children.