BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

Health Care, Welfare & Entitlements Archive

Saturday

6

March 2010

1

COMMENTS

State Legislators Standing Up For Federalism

Written by , Posted in Health Care, Welfare & Entitlements

The president of the Utah Senate and the speaker of the Utah House of Representatives recently took to the pages of the Washington Post to lay out a “modest proposal.” While their ideas are modest in a historical context, the sad irony is that what they propose is quite radical for the modern era. Simply put, they want the federal government to butt out and let Utah take care of Utah.

The two Utah legislators, Michael G. Waddoups and David Clark, propose to have the state take over completely several programs, such as education and Medicaid, which are currently influenced by both state and federal policy.  They argue that the strings which come with federal dollars for these programs are onerous and promote inefficiency.  They’d rather those dollars be kept in the state to begin with, instead of first being funneled through federal bureaucracies, only to return with strings that threaten state sovereignty.

Hear, hear.

I’ve written in the past about the destructive consequences of allowing the federal government to abuse its tax and spending power in order to cajole states into adopting its preferred policies. Such a system wastes money, distances tax payers from their local governments, and undermines the federalist system which has served us so well.

Utah isn’t the only state talking about restoring federalism. Alabama Governor Bob Riley recently signed a resolution reaffirming the long-ignored Tenth Amendment. While not legally binding, the resolution ought to serve notice that the states are not longer rolling over to federal demands.  Other states have similar measures at various stages of the legislative process.

It’s about time that state lawmakers stand up and say that they’d rather not take federal dollars at all. They deserve support, because this is not an easy position to take. Too often the states are complicit in the erosion of their own authority as they run hat-in-hand to the federal government for more money. Perhaps now they are realizing that sacrificing long-term governing authority for immediate political expediency is a bad bargain.

Monday

1

March 2010

0

COMMENTS

Avoid The Language Of Totalitarianism

Written by , Posted in Free Markets, Health Care, Welfare & Entitlements, Liberty & Limited Government

A lot of phrases are being thrown about in the midst of the current health care debate.  Perhaps the most common is the sentiment that we need to control the costs of health care.

Both right and left agree that it is desirable to have health care cost less.  But controlling costs?  That implies centralized authority, that someone will wrangle greedy health providers and force them to lower costs.  It’s a decidedly statist vision.  Yet even those offering free market solutions often adopt such language. This is a mistake. While it might seem acceptable in the proper context to say that “competition would control costs,” it subtly cedes moral ground to the statists.

Such totalitarian language is common in America.  It’s routinely asserted that our presidents are elected to rule the country or manage the economy.  Both of these assertions are absurd, or ought to be, if taken literally.

There are probably many other great examples.  What other totalitarian terms or phrases have infiltrated and proliferated throughout our vernacular?

Sunday

28

February 2010

0

COMMENTS

Wednesday

24

February 2010

0

COMMENTS

How Not To Bring Down Health Care Prices

Written by , Posted in Health Care, Welfare & Entitlements, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

Health care can be expensive.  There are lots of reasons why this is.  Some of them we don’t want to change, such as the fact that modern health care is capable of miracles.  Miracles aren’t cheap.  Other causes we don’t want to change, such as the fact that third-party payers eliminate normal market pressure to keep prices down.

Obama has another idea, however.  Control insurance prices!

President Obama will propose on Monday giving the federal government new power to block excessive rate increases by health insurance companies, as he rolls out comprehensive legislation to revamp the nation’s health care system, White House officials said Sunday.

Two reasons this is dumb:

1) Price controls don’t work.  It’s like trying to legislate away gravity.  Michael Tanner explains some of the consequences:

Insurers unable to charge more for an increasingly expensive product can be expected to trim costs in one of two ways:

  • They can drop their most expensive customers — in this case, the sickest, who consume the most health care. Many companies are already doing this, a major source of dissatisfaction with the health-care system. In fact, the president wants to prohibit companies from doing this.
  • They can cut back on their reimbursement rates to hospitals and physicians. But neither doctors nor hospitals, any more than insurance companies, are willing to operate at a loss. If payments fall below their costs, they’ll simply stop taking patients. One only has to look at government programs like Medicare and Medicaid to see how this works.

2) Insurance prices go up because health care prices go up.  Not only is Obama attempting to apply the wrong remedy, but he’s targeting the wrong problem.  It’s stupidity squared.

Wednesday

27

January 2010

0

COMMENTS

Inundated With Freedom

Written by , Posted in Health Care, Welfare & Entitlements, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

“Community activist” Arthur Turner sees fat people. And like any good nanny, he wants to do something about it.  Naturally, that doesn’t involve hitting the treadmill to drop his own extra chin.  That would be too close to admitting that personal responsibility is the answer. He prefers to limit freedom of choice.

arthur turner

Burger King strapped him down and force fed him fatty burgers

Travel along a two-block stretch of Central Avenue in Prince George’s County, and you’ll find a staggering 11 fast-food restaurants.

For community activist Arthur Turner and state Sen. David C. Harrington (D-Prince George’s), the strip is evidence of the proliferation of burger joints and Chinese takeouts in the county, especially in poorer, inner Capital Beltway communities.

…”Our county is inundated with unhealthy food choices,” Turner said. “In some areas, if someone wants a healthy choice, there are no options. We want healthy options in our community.”

…Turner said that his group identified Panera Bread and Chipotle as preferable alternatives to a fast-food burger restaurant and that he plans to seek similar compromises with other developers.

Mr. Turner has confused cause and effect.  The people in this particular area have already decided that Panera Bread and Chipotle are not preferable alternatives, or those stores would have been there already making money without need of his benevolent interference.

He defines a “preferable alternative” as not what the people actually prefer, but what he prefers. Ultimately, what nannies always try to do is shape society through the use of government force to fit their own preferences. That is the antithesis of what a free society is all about.

If Mr. Turner wants to make a difference in a manner that is consistent with a free society, he should set about convincing people that his preferences are best without the use of government force.

Friday

15

January 2010

0

COMMENTS

Another Day, Another Bribe

Written by , Posted in Health Care, Welfare & Entitlements, Labor Unions

You can bet that any legislation which requires this many despicable, backroom deals is bad for America:

In their latest effort to pass a health care bill by any means necessary, Democrats have struck a “tentative deal” with their big labor allies to exempt union benefits from a tax on high value health care plans, CongressDaily reports.

…

If this policy is adopted, it would mean that there could be two Americans receiving the exact same benefits, but one American may be taxed and one wouldn’t, and the only difference would be one of them being a member of a union…

Friday

15

January 2010

0

COMMENTS

Krugman Wants To Learn From France, But Ignores History

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Health Care, Welfare & Entitlements, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

We don’t need to fear turning America into France by passing ObamaCare, says Paul Krugman in a recent column. After all, European welfare state economies are doing great!  What’s his proof?  Just trust your eyes!

Actually, Europe’s economic success should be obvious even without statistics. For those Americans who have visited Paris: did it look poor and backward? What about Frankfurt or London? You should always bear in mind that when the question is which to believe — official economic statistics or your own lying eyes — the eyes have it.

What Krugman doesn’t say is that none of these European welfare states actually got their wealth by being welfare states. They got wealthy the way all countries do: through liberal markets and free trade. They then built massive welfare states on top of already wealthy societies. And lo and behold, when they did that their growth rates dropped significantly. They trade away higher future levels of prosperity for the illusion of present day security. That seems like an ok trade when it’s first made, but as more and more time passes, the difference between what people have and what they could have had with a more dynamic economy renders it a bum deal. And that’s before getting into arguments about the inherent instability in large, bureaucratic government and centrally planned societies.

Krugman does later provide some manner of statistical support for his apparent contention that there are no economic trade-offs (that’s his theme these days: no costs for implementing the radical agenda!) for instituting a cradle-to-grave nanny state, but Greg Mankiw’s numbers are better.

Wednesday

6

January 2010

0

COMMENTS

At All Costs

Written by , Posted in Health Care, Welfare & Entitlements

Nancy Pelosi and the far left have decided that gaining control of our health care system must be done at any cost.  Promises be damned.

Both Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi promised there would be transparency during the health care debate.  Pelosi assumed the Speakers role while promising to work at “restoring accountability and openness.” She also promised “ample time” for the public to learn what is in the health care bill.  Don’t hold your breath.

04congress_slide9_nancy-pelosi

The mallet is for bashing heads

At a 2008 debate, Obama said that a potential health care bill would not be negotiated “behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-Span so the American people can see what the choices are.” He lied on all accounts.  Democrats are negotiating behind closed doors, will subvert the normal legislative process, and have cut out Republicans.  Meanwhile, the CEO of C-Span wrote a letter, thus far to no avail, asking these leaders to live up to their promises by having the process televised.

Faced with this reality, Nancy Pelosi put on her best Baghdad Bob impression and declared, “there has never been a more open process for any legislation.”  Au contraire! There has never been a bigger liar serving as Speaker of the House, nor President of the United States.

Monday

21

December 2009

0

COMMENTS

Wednesday

9

December 2009

0

COMMENTS

Expanding Entitlements Does Not Save Money

Written by , Posted in Health Care, Welfare & Entitlements

An incredible story out of West Virginia contends that expanding Medicaid will save money.

West Virginia’s health-care system could save up to $2.2 billion a year beginning in 2014 with an aggressive expansion of Medicaid and other health reforms, according to an actuarial report presented to state legislators Monday.

How will this magic happen? Everything will work out because the Fed’s are footing the bill!

States will eventually be asked to pay for Medicaid expansion, and that is likely to cost West Virginia nearly between $40 million and $50 million a year, Bryant said. But the federal government would pick up the tab for the first two years.

“It is remarkable the amount of money that the federal government is considering putting into the expansion of Medicaid,” he told lawmakers at an interim legislative meeting.

Saying that this will “save” West Virginia money is an accounting trick.  The (temporary) money coming in from the federal government has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is the taxpayers.  This includes, obviously, West Virginians.

This is another example of the destructive influence of federal dollars on state policy.

Newer Entries →
← Older Entries

About Me

profileI serve as Vice President of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, a non-profit think tank dedicated to preserving tax competition and free markets. This site features my personal views, which are not reflective of CF&P.

Search Site

Categories

Archives