State-Of-The-Art Health Care For Everyone? | William Poole | Cato Institute: Commentary

State-Of-The-Art Health Care For Everyone? | William Poole | Cato Institute: Commentary: "A nation cannot afford state-of-the-art health care for everyone. The current effort to expand health care insurance is designed to make the same health care available to both those with extensive insurance and to those currently uninsured. This effort ignores the fact that resources to make such care available to everyone do not exist.

For every major category of goods, higher income families spend more than lower-income families. Health care is not an exception."

"Let's assume that the highest income group can afford state-of-the-art health care, which we would like to make available to everyone. Based on these data, that would increase national health care outlays by 70%. To achieve this outcome, the nation would need many more physicians, nurses, medical technicians, hospitals, medical schools, MRI machines, drugs and so forth. It would be easier for the space program to send astronauts to Mars than to increase the scale of the medical establishment by 70%.

Providing today's state-of-the-art health care for everyone is simply impossible. Moreover, relentless and highly desirable technical improvements keep pushing the health care frontier outward. An ambitious goal, like sending astronauts to the moon, may be desirable, depending on a calculation of benefits and costs. An impossible goal, like state-of-the-art health care for everyone, is foolish."

"There are only two ways to say no. One is through bureaucratic processes that approve some insurance claims and deny others. The second is for society to put the decision in the hands of families and their physicians. Their decisions will necessarily be based in part on what families can afford. Higher income families can afford insurance policies that cover a wider range of ailments and treatments. From their own resources, they can pay expenses not covered by insurance. In some cases, families and their physicians may choose not to incur certain expenses the family could otherwise afford, choosing instead to leave larger bequests to children and grandchildren.

It is surely true that there are ways to improve the efficiency of existing health care resources. However, it is a pipe dream to believe that the nation can get 70% more health care from existing resources."

Not Enough Healthcare to Go Around | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary

Not Enough Healthcare to Go Around | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary: "If a treatment can save our lives or increase quality of life, we want it. Therefore, in the long run, the only way to spend less on healthcare is to consume less healthcare. Someone, sometime, has to say no.

Take just one example. If everyone were to receive a CT brain scan every year as part of an annual physical, we would undoubtedly discover a small number of brain cancers earlier than we otherwise would, perhaps early enough to save a few lives. But given the scan's cost, adding it to all annual physicals would quickly bankrupt the nation."

"The real debate, therefore, is not about whether we should ration care but about who should ration it. Currently, that decision is often made by insurance companies or other third-party payers. Obama and congressional Democrats want to shift that decision-making power to the federal government. Some, frustrated by the insurance-based rationing of the current system, naively believe that putting the government in charge would mean unlimited access to the care they need and desire. When Michael Moore, in Sicko, showcased emotional tales of people denied experimental treatment by insurance companies, he implied that a government-run system would certainly pay for it.

The reality, however, is that every government-run healthcare system around the world rations care."

"Free-market healthcare reformers, on the other hand, want to shift more of the decisions (and therefore the financial responsibility) back to the individual.

People should have the absolute right to spend their own money on whatever they want, including buying as much healthcare as they want. And, if they are spending their own money, they will make their own rationing decisions based on price and value.

That CT scan that looked so desirable when someone else was paying may not be so desirable if you have to pay for it yourself. The consumer himself becomes the one who says no.

Of course, as a compassionate society, we may choose to help others pay for some care. That's a worthwhile debate to have. But our resources are not unlimited. Choices will have to be made. And, therefore, the real question should be: Who will make those choices?

The only way to spend less on healthcare is to consume less healthcare."

Does Inequality Still Matter? | Will Wilkinson | Cato Institute: Commentary

Does Inequality Still Matter? | Will Wilkinson | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Income inequality can rise and fall for all sorts of reasons. Twenty-somethings just starting out and retired seventy-somethings both earn a lot less on average than peak-earning fifty-somethings. As the age profile of the population shifts, income inequality figures shift, too. So what? Consider another example. A generous immigration policy can widen the income gap in this country while at the same time reducing world poverty. That's good, if you ask me.

Income inequality can also rise as a side-effect of injustice in our socio-economic system. But injustice should be rooted out because it is wrong, not because it widens the income gap as a side effect. If, just to take a wildly hypothetical example, the government has unjustly dumped loads of taxpayer money on Goldman Sachs, such a narrow allocation of public funds for private use should concern us for its own sake — not because Goldman's bountiful bonuses are likely to exacerbate income inequality."

Report: Obama Daughters Featured in Controversial Food Ad - Political News - FOXNews.com

Report: Obama Daughters Featured in Controversial Food Ad - Political News - FOXNews.com: "While the ad is part of a campaign to petition Congress to require healthier foods in schools, Politico newspaper reports that 'targeting' the Obama girls is no way to win friends at the White House.

'This is not the way to win the heart of the president,' Brookings Institution Governance Studies Director Darrell West told Politico. 'It's dangerous to target Obama's daughters because many people view family members as off limits for political advocacy. That's especially relevant in this case because his daughters are so young.'"

It's not about the girls -- its about the choices her father makes and how that affects them.

George: Gay Marriage, Democracy and the Supreme Court - WSJ.com

George: Gay Marriage, Democracy and the Supreme Court - WSJ.com: "Even many supporters of legal abortion now consider Roe a mistake. Lacking any basis in the text, logic or original understanding of the Constitution, the decision became a symbol of the judicial usurpation of authority vested in the people and their representatives. It sent the message that judges need not be impartial umpires—as both John Roberts and Sonia Sotomayor say they should be—but that judges can impose their policy preferences under the pretext of enforcing constitutional guarantees.

By short-circuiting the democratic process, Roe inflamed the culture war that has divided our nation and polarized our politics. Abortion, which the Court purported to settle in 1973, remains the most unsettled issue in American politics—and the most unsettling. Another Roe would deepen the culture war and prolong it indefinitely."

'Candid and clear-thinking advocates of redefining marriage recognize that doing so entails abandoning norms such as monogamy. In a 2006 statement entitled “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage,” over 300 lesbian, gay, and allied activists, educators, lawyers, and community organizers—including Gloria Steinem, Barbara Ehrenreich, and prominent Yale, Columbia and Georgetown professors—call for legally recognizing multiple sex partner (“polyamorous”) relationships. Their logic is unassailable once the historic definition of marriage is overthrown.

Is this a red herring? This week’s Newsweek reports more than 500,000 polyamorous households in the U.S.

So, before judging whether traditional marriage laws should be junked, we must decide what marriage is. It is this crucial and logically prior question that some want to shuffle off stage.'

Bad Reform Is Worse Than No Reform | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary

Bad Reform Is Worse Than No Reform | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary: "If one totals up all the new taxes in the House Democratic health reform bill–the income tax surtax, the penalties on businesses that fail to provide and individuals who fail to buy the governments prescribed health care plan, as well as other frees and taxes–the cost to American taxpayers will top $800 billion. On top of that, studies suggest that the plan could increase insurance premiums by 75-95 percent."

Does Cash for Clunkers Help the Environment? It's Debatable - Political News - FOXNews.com

Does Cash for Clunkers Help the Environment? It's Debatable - Political News - FOXNews.com: "'Disposing of old products, a step required by most incentive and rebate programs, also has environmental costs,' Gwen Ottinger, a researcher at the Chemical Heritage Foundation's Center for Contemporary History and Policy in Philadelphia, wrote in an opinion article published in The Washington Post on Tuesday.

'It takes energy to shred and recycle metals; plastic components often cannot be recycled and end up as landfill cover; and the engine fluids, refrigerants and other chemicals essential to operating products end up as hazardous wastes,' she wrote."

Obamacare Follies: A Perilous Rush | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary

Obamacare Follies: A Perilous Rush | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Yes, as Chairman Rangel says, lives are at stake. But even if health-care reform passed tomorrow, most provisions of the bill won't go into effect until 2013. And, if lives are at stake, isn't that all the more reason why Congress should, say, read the bill? Debate it? Get it right?"

Seattle Bank Teller Loses Job After Thwarting Heist - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com

Seattle Bank Teller Loses Job After Thwarting Heist - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com: "'They tell us that we're just supposed to comply, but my instincts kicked in and I did what's best to stop the guy,' the 30-year-old Nicholson told The Seattle Times. 'I thought if I let him go he would rob more banks and cause more problems.'"

Maybe training the employee to follow the policy better next time would have been better than firing him.

75% Favor Auditing The Fed - Rasmussen Reports™

75% Favor Auditing The Fed - Rasmussen Reports™: "A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 75% of Americans favor auditing the Federal Reserve and making the results available to the public. Just nine percent (9%) of adults think that’s a bad idea and oppose it."