January 16, 2008 by Tom Armstrong.

I love this NY Times piece by Steven Landsburg. Notable:

All economists know that when American jobs are outsourced, Americans as a group are net winners. What we lose through lower wages is more than offset by what we gain through lower prices. In other words, the winners can more than afford to compensate the losers. Does that mean they ought to? Does it create a moral mandate for the taxpayer-subsidized retraining programs proposed by Mr. McCain and Mr. Romney?

…

One way to think about that is to ask what your moral instincts tell you in analogous situations. Suppose, after years of buying shampoo at your local pharmacy, you discover you can order the same shampoo for less money on the Web. Do you have an obligation to compensate your pharmacist? If you move to a cheaper apartment, should you compensate your landlord? When you eat at McDonald’s, should you compensate the owners of the diner next door? Public policy should not be designed to advance moral instincts that we all reject every day of our lives.

Posted in General post | No Comments »

January 16, 2008 by Tom Armstrong.

Here is Rich Karlgaard’s take on Huckabee in this month’s Forbes.

Posted in General post | No Comments »

January 16, 2008 by Tom Armstrong.

A letter to the editor in today’s WSJ:

While I appreciate Robert Reich’s op-ed, “The Road to Universal Coverage” (Jan. 9), I noticed something missing. He just assumes that it is a given that universal coverage is the way things should be. Since government is not involved in the purchase of my auto insurance, homeowners insurance, renters insurance, life insurance, long-term-care insurance or dental insurance, why should government be involved in the purchase of my health insurance?

To go a step further, why is government involved in the insurance business to begin with? The programs already implemented or mandated by government — Medicare and Medicaid — have done nothing but drive the cost of health care up to the point that now the average person has a problem affording decent coverage. Prior to government involvement, people could afford excellent health care. But all the unfunded mandates now imposed have to be funded from someone’s pocket, and it turns out to be the same people who now can no longer afford coverage for themselves and their families.

Isn’t it ironic that the same people who caused the problem are now proposing to solve it with more of the same solutions? Am I naïve in thinking that this will not work? I think the solution may be to uninvolve government, uninvolve companies and let everyone purchase the health-care insurance they wish for themselves. That is the only solution that will drive down the costs. How can someone I do not know, have never spoken with, will never speak with and who will never know anything about my health possibly decide on what health insurance coverage I need?

In 2006, the nation’s health-care bill was more than $2 trillion. That’s an average of $7,026 for every person; a 6.7% increase in costs, which is well over the rate of inflation. Most of these costs come from just 10% of the population. These people account for over 60% of the health-care costs.

Health economist Jack Rodgers says that we are on a path to the government being a larger and larger payer for health care . . . and in the long term, that means being the majority payer. Currently, federal, state and local governments already pay 47% of the nation’s health-care costs. And if we keep this up, the government’s share will be more than half by 2017.

Scary huh? Is this really the purpose of government?

Posted in General post | 1 Comment »