BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

Health Care, Welfare & Entitlements Archive

Tuesday

8

December 2009

0

COMMENTS

Maybe We’re Not All Going To Die

Written by , Posted in Health Care, Welfare & Entitlements

Not from the dreaded H1N1, anyway.  It turns out that it’s no more deadly than regular flu.  All the hysteria was unwarranted:

With the second wave of H1N1 infections having crested in the United States, leading epidemiologists are predicting that the pandemic could end up ranking as the mildest since modern medicine began documenting influenza outbreaks.

Experts warn that the flu is notoriously unpredictable, but several recent analyses, including one released late Monday, indicate that the death toll is likely to be far lower than the number of fatalities caused by past pandemics.

The so-called authorities seem to have a penchant for over-hyping dangers.  Hmm, I wonder what other issue areas exist in which that knowledge might come in handy.

Friday

13

November 2009

0

COMMENTS

Souring On Government

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

Now that we’ve forced the debate, Americans are turning against the idea that government should be responsible for guaranteeing insurance for all.  A recent Gallup poll reveals:

gallup_fedgovhealth

The primary change has been among Republicans and Republican-leaners. For years a surprising number on the right answered affirmative when asked whether government is responsible for making sure that all Americans have health coverage. When actual legislative items aren’t on the table, people are more likely to give the feel good answer. This is why it’s imperative to constantly educate and make the case for small government as we are doing now.

Now that we are winning the argument, it’s time to roll out with some specific small-government reforms, like the promotion of insurance competition across state lines, the equalization of the tax treatment of employer and individual purchased insurance, and a necessary overhall of Medicare which ideally would lead away from the third-party payer system. The idea isn’t that they’ll pass under the Democrats, but that getting them into the public conciousness is a necessary step to being able to implement them down the road.

Wednesday

11

November 2009

0

COMMENTS

Meddling Is What Rewards Congressmen With Campaign Funds

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Health Care, Welfare & Entitlements, Waste & Government Reform

Single issue organizations often try to piggy-back on the big issues of the day and gain publicity by tying major news items to their agenda.  I can hardly fault them for it, but when they use bad logic in an effort to restrict freedoms, I must call them out.

Members of Congress who noted “no” on health care reform legislation late Saturday night have received $2.3 million more in campaign donations from health insurance interests than those who voted in favor of the legislation to overhaul of the nation’s health care system, according to analysis released by a coalition of campaign reform groups.

“The health care debate shows that our campaign finance system is as much in crisis as our health care system,” said David Donnelly, national campaigns director of Public Campaign Action Fund, the watchdog group that conducted the analysis for the coalition. “As measured in campaign donations, it clearly pays to be against reform and with the health insurance interests.”

There are several problems with this account of their findings. First, the difference in donations for the two sides isn’t all that great. One group got $12.5 and the other closer to $10 million. Yet clearly they want to paint it as nefarious to donate to people opposing PelosiCare, but it’s no problem for those who support it.

Which brings me to my second point. They are wrong to assert that the “vote shows the need to transform our current campaign finance system.” Their idea of transforming campaign finance is to restrict the freedom to financially support politicians on the basis of their views, and they argue this is necessary by inferring, but not substantiating, corruption when it comes to voting on health care reform. But their claim that it “clearly pays to be against reform” misses the point:  it clearly pays to be on either side of the issue.  The $2.3 million difference between being for or against the legislation is minimal compared to the $10+ million difference between have or not having a piece of controversial legislation to vote on in the first place.

Whether they are for or against the particular bills before Congress, both sides are financially better off for having the “debate” at all. The incentive then is not to switch sides for money, but to threaten governmental interference in all manner of issues, and as often as possible, in order to create more anxiety in the private sector. Every additional “crises” that needs “reform” will bring out new stakeholders with buckets full of cash who want to make sure they don’t get shafted in the process.

Restricting donations is not likely to solve anything because both sides – industries who want favorable regulations and politicians who want money with which to seek reelection – are highly motivated to get around any restrictions.  New ways will always emerge for money to get from industry pocket A into Congressional pocket B.

The best solution is not to limit our freedoms, but to limit the powers of Congress. The fewer issues that are within their regulatory purview, the fewer opportunities they have to go around kicking ant mounds in hopes of seeing which deep pockets get stirred up.

Sunday

8

November 2009

0

COMMENTS

It’s Bipartisan!

Written by , Posted in Health Care, Welfare & Entitlements, Legislation

Two-hundred and nineteen Democrats and a single Republican voted to pass the health care monstrosity PelosiCare.  The Republican was Anh “Joseph” Cao, recently elected to fill William “Frozen Money” Jefferson’s seat.  He’s one of the most liberal Republicans in the House in a very blue district. So there isn’t much point getting worked up over his vote, beyond the amusement of listening to the spinners claim use it to claim bipartisanship.

The real bipartisan vote was the opposition, where 39 Democrats defected to oppose the bill.  But let’s not kid ourselves, many (like Dennis Kucinich) did it because they think it didn’t offer enough socialism.

Monday

2

November 2009

0

COMMENTS

So Simple, It's Wrong

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

Ezra Klein thinks the health care debate is uninformed.  Not to worry, the savvy commentator offers the antitidote: an explanation for why health care costs are high in the U.S.  He has a miraculously simple explanation.  Health care costs are high in America – I hope you’re paying attention – because the per unit costs are higher than other countries!

There is a simple explanation for why American health care costs so much more than health care in any other country: because we pay so much more for each unit of care.

Don’t you feel so much more informed?

He goes on to attribute the difference to our lack of price controls.  Quelle surprise!

It’s a neat trick he pulls off in trying to assume price controls as the default model. Price controls are a policy choice – a restriction of freedom – that must be justified on grounds beyond just an assumption of existence (they have price controls and we don’t, thus our prices are higher!). Of course, I don’t buy that any justification exists for such an unconstitutional policy, but its advocates owe those without principled objections an affirmative case that weighs the advantages and disadvantages. For instance, other countries that use price controls have an advantage that we would not if we attempted to do the same: the existence of a U.S. market that subsidizes their policies. Canada can dictate drug prices because drug makers can recoup that money by raising prices in the lucrative U.S. market. Take that away and health care across the world suffers a tremendous blow.

Other American industries without controls  see price reductions over time. An astute observer would ask why that is, rather than simply pointing out the obvious fact that price controls reduce prices. Of course, the answer wouldn’t suit big government pushers like Klein, who also makes no mention whatsoever of costs that are not strictly financial (prices and costs are not synonymous).  He looks at none of the other costs (insufficient capacity, reduced innovation, rationing and intolerable wait times) placed on systems by price controls. These are costs that Americans are simply not likely to accept.

If Klein were serious about having an informed debate, he would ask about all the government distortions placed on health care that prevent normal market forces from working to hold down prices.

Sunday

1

November 2009

2

COMMENTS

The Latest Health Care Monstrosity

Written by , Posted in Health Care, Welfare & Entitlements, Legislation

Weighing in at 1990 pages, the latest health care legislation (H.R. 3962) is a  familiar collection of big government policies. Misleadingly touted by Democrats and media as costing $894 billion, the bill is actually “a $725 billion tax increase and a $1.5 trillion spending program,” according to Jim Capretta.  CBO once again warns that its analysis is colored by rosy and politically unlikely assumptions, rendering it highly unlikely that the deficit reductions they find will actually materialize.

The bill contains a plethora of tax increases, which is reflected by its language.  Words like “taxes,” “fee,” and “penalty” are sprinkled liberally throughout.  Americans for Tax Reform counts 13 new taxes or increases, including an employer mandate and excise taxes on medical devices.

The only thing this massive tome of big government statism doesn’t have is any actual policy to help bring down costs or make health care more responsive to consumers.

Friday

23

October 2009

1

COMMENTS

Nancy Pelosi: Constitutional Questions Are Not Serious

Written by , Posted in Health Care, Welfare & Entitlements

Every piece of legislative problem solving ought to start by answering a simple question: under what Constitutional authority do we act?  Given that the Constitution is a document of enumerated powers, a specific empowerment should be found to support the action. Not only does Nancy Pelosi disagree, she and her office thinks it’s ridiculous to even ask:

The exchange with Speaker Pelosi on Thursday occurred as follows:

CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”

Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am.”

Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a “serious question.”

“You can put this on the record,” said Elshami. “That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”

Exit question: Ideally, ought this attitude constitute an impeachable breach of her oath to “bear true faith and allegiance to the [Constitution]?”

Hat-tip: Yid with Lid

Friday

23

October 2009

1

COMMENTS

New Brilliant Dem Idea: Medicare All Around

Written by , Posted in Health Care, Welfare & Entitlements

Many of the problems with health care can be traced back to Medicare.  The third-party payer system, in which Medicare is the biggest single purchaser, means that the patient is not the customer.  This leads to all manner of undesirable outcomes, including excessive death due to negligence and price inflation.

David Goldhill is a self- described left-leaning democrat and businessman whose father died from an easily preventable, hospital caused infection. After his father’s death, he spent a year and a half learning everything he could about health care delivery and why there are so many practices in health care that are intolerable in other businesses. He rejects the almost religious devotion many have to the idea that health care is just so fundamentally different from other sectors, and instead believes that our insistence on treating it different is what ultimately causes so many of its ills.  It is clear from his exploration (video from a recent Cato hosted Hill event) that one of the primary culprits is Medicare.

In addition to its distortionary impact on the delivery of health care, Medicare is also fiscally unsound.  In the coming decades costs are set to balloon out of control, leaving trillions in unfunded liabilities.  None of this is a problem for democrats.  In fact, they love Medicare so much, they want to expand it!

Strategically they’ve discovered that the public is more likely to accept the expansion of something they are familiar with than the “public option,” even though it would serve largely the same function.  Naturally, politics is all that matters to democrats, so with this discovery they’ll now begin ramming a universal medicare plan down our throats, and to hell with the consequences.

Thursday

15

October 2009

0

COMMENTS

It's Still Misleading

Written by , Posted in Health Care, Welfare & Entitlements, Media Bias

NPR has finally decided to stop lying about health care statistics:

NPR’S deputy senior supervising editor Joe Neel drafted an e-mail that was sent out Oct. 14 to member stations addressing the number of uninsured. The e-mail clarified proper use of Census Bureau statistics and advised staff to “avoid the construction ’46 million Americans.'” That number has been a flashpoint throughout the health care debate.

The NPR e-mail said, “We are sticking with the 46 million number issued by the Census Bureau in September (for 2008). It’s the number of people in the U.S. who lack insurance coverage at any point during the prior 12 months. It includes citizens, legal residents and undocumented immigrants.”

The e-mail went on to explain how not to report the issue. “Better to say ’46 million uninsured in America,’ or ‘the nation’s 46 million uninsured people,’ or any other formulation that does not label all 46 million as citizens,” the e-mail continued.

Although it’s nice that they caught on, however belatedly, to the fact that it’s a lie to label a group as Americans when it includes people here illegally, the 46 million figure is still dishonestly misleading.  As the email says, it is the total number “who lack insurance coverage at any point during the prior 12 months.”  This necessarily includes a large number who merely transitioned from one plan to another.  Why, exactly, should these people be included in the same group with those who can’t afford coverage? And then there’s always those who can afford it but don’t buy it – also included in the NPR preferred figures.

How exactly does this mishmash of groups into one statistic inform the debate? There is no good answer to that, and NPR won’t bother trying to find one.  They’ll continue to regurgitate the Democratic talking points that there are 46 million people in America that justify a government takeover of health insurance. Their figures are wrong, and so are their solutions.

Wednesday

14

October 2009

0

COMMENTS

Olympia Snowe Needs To Get An Answering Machine

Written by , Posted in Health Care, Welfare & Entitlements

Big government supporter Olympia Snowe provided cover yesterday for ongoing liberal attempts at a health-care takeover with her committee vote for the Baucus bill.  She summed up this betrayal of the American people by saying, “when history calls, history calls.”

If the erosion of personal freedom and the destruction of prosperity are what history asks for, then next time it calls, hang up.

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