Posts
Obama Defends Health Care Plan to Town Hall Skeptic - Political News - FOXNews.com: "He cited examples in which people have lost their insurance, including when going from job to job and because of pre-existing conditions."
Government regulation promotes the loss of insurance between jobs so why don't they just fix that?
Technically you can't lose insurance because of a pre-existing condition -- it is just more expensive to buy new insurance.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Job Market Could Lag Behind for Years, Study Forecasts - Political News - FOXNews.com
Job Market Could Lag Behind for Years, Study Forecasts - Political News - FOXNews.com: "According to their forecast, the unemployment rate will be at 10 percent through 2011. Three years after that, the jobless rate will have dropped only to 8 percent. And a decade from now, that rate will still be floating above 6 percent.�"
Can the Free Market Wage War? - David Gordon - Mises Institute
Can the Free Market Wage War? - David Gordon - Mises Institute: "Tariffs, and similar measures designed to strengthen the nation, 'should not be considered as measures of production policy.' They aid some citizens at the expense of others; they do not help the economy as a whole."
"The first step which led from the soldiers' war back to total war was the introduction of compulsory military service. … The war was no longer to be only a matter of mercenaries; it was to include everyone who had the necessary physical ability. … But when it is realized that a part of the able-bodied must be used on the industrial front … then there is no reason to differentiate in compulsory service between the able-bodied and the physically unfit. Compulsory military service thus leads to compulsory labor service of all citizens who are able to work, male and female."
"On the basis of such [anticapitalist] reasoning the [Léon] Blum government nationalized the French armament industry. When the war broke out and it became imperative to place the productive power of all French plants into the service of the rearmament effort, the French authorities considered it more important to block war profits than to win the war."
"The first step which led from the soldiers' war back to total war was the introduction of compulsory military service. … The war was no longer to be only a matter of mercenaries; it was to include everyone who had the necessary physical ability. … But when it is realized that a part of the able-bodied must be used on the industrial front … then there is no reason to differentiate in compulsory service between the able-bodied and the physically unfit. Compulsory military service thus leads to compulsory labor service of all citizens who are able to work, male and female."
"On the basis of such [anticapitalist] reasoning the [Léon] Blum government nationalized the French armament industry. When the war broke out and it became imperative to place the productive power of all French plants into the service of the rearmament effort, the French authorities considered it more important to block war profits than to win the war."
What Health Care "Reform" Would Mean For Montana | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary
What Health Care "Reform" Would Mean For Montana | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary: "First, the legislation making its way through both the House and Senate contains an individual mandate — a requirement that every American buy health insurance. And not just any insurance but insurance that includes all the benefits government thinks you should have. That insurance could be more expensive or include benefits that people don't want, or are morally opposed to such as abortion.
That doesn't just affect those without insurance today. The bills now before Congress say that while you won't be immediately forced to switch from your current insurance to a government-specified plan, you'll have to switch to satisfy the government's requirements if you lose your current insurance or want to change plans. And, for the 70 percent of us who get our insurance through work, those plans will all have to satisfy the government's benefit requirements within five years."
That doesn't just affect those without insurance today. The bills now before Congress say that while you won't be immediately forced to switch from your current insurance to a government-specified plan, you'll have to switch to satisfy the government's requirements if you lose your current insurance or want to change plans. And, for the 70 percent of us who get our insurance through work, those plans will all have to satisfy the government's benefit requirements within five years."
Junk Food, Taxes, and the Market Solution - Sascha Baghestanian - Mises Institute
Junk Food, Taxes, and the Market Solution - Sascha Baghestanian - Mises Institute: "So it seems to be easy to explain why people love fast food: it contains a lot of meat, it is designed to taste well, and it is getting ever cheaper. But how can a good that is potentially hazardous get cheaper and cheaper? Shouldn't the market accommodate for the hazard, so that people who are willing to take the potential risk for the sake of pleasure have to face higher costs in terms of higher insurance premiums?
That's where the public medical plans come into play. Since the government distorts the health insurance markets, it releases the insurance seekers from their own responsibilities.
The standard health insurance premiums for overweight people (and smokers) are certainly below a potential free market price. The most obvious proof for this is the public health deficit — which a profit-oriented insurance company could not run year after year without being outcompeted by other companies. Clearly, on a free market in health insurance, obese persons would have to pay even higher premiums than they do now."
'For the sake of argument, let us also accept the government's assumption that an increase in taxes would affect behavior and reduce the consumption of burgers and pizza.
Who would be the most negatively affected by such a tax hike?'
'In the fast food industry, where 70% of total costs is attributed to labor, it's pretty clear who is going to be affected: the people who are standing behind the counter, asking several-hundred times a day, "For here or to go?"'
'What about the consumer? The government gave him the illusion that the side effects of his actions would be costless. He is certainly not the one who should be blamed for this situation. It is government overregulation that caused this mess and deserves the blame.'
That's where the public medical plans come into play. Since the government distorts the health insurance markets, it releases the insurance seekers from their own responsibilities.
The standard health insurance premiums for overweight people (and smokers) are certainly below a potential free market price. The most obvious proof for this is the public health deficit — which a profit-oriented insurance company could not run year after year without being outcompeted by other companies. Clearly, on a free market in health insurance, obese persons would have to pay even higher premiums than they do now."
'For the sake of argument, let us also accept the government's assumption that an increase in taxes would affect behavior and reduce the consumption of burgers and pizza.
Who would be the most negatively affected by such a tax hike?'
'In the fast food industry, where 70% of total costs is attributed to labor, it's pretty clear who is going to be affected: the people who are standing behind the counter, asking several-hundred times a day, "For here or to go?"'
'What about the consumer? The government gave him the illusion that the side effects of his actions would be costless. He is certainly not the one who should be blamed for this situation. It is government overregulation that caused this mess and deserves the blame.'
The Case against National School Standards | Andrew J. Coulson | Cato Institute: Commentary
The Case against National School Standards | Andrew J. Coulson | Cato Institute: Commentary: "But averages don't take tests. Kids do. Even if students' average academic potential were the same in Texas and Vermont, the individual children who make up those averages would still be all over the map. To claim that all the children in a single large family could progress through every subject at the same pace is a stretch. To claim this of every child in a whole neighborhood is preposterous. To claim it of every child in a nation of 300 million people is the premise of national standards.
Children are not interchangeable widgets. It does not serve their interests to feed them through learning factories on a single, fixed-pace conveyor belt. Some pick up reading quickly and easily fly through ever more challenging texts. Others find reading a chore, progressing more slowly even when encouraged by supportive families and talented teachers. To demand a single pace for all students in all subjects is to simultaneously tie together the laces of the fleet and kick out the crutches of the slow.
Not only is it impossible to create a single set of standards that would serve every child equally well, such standards would fail to significantly improve our schools. High external standards have never been the driving force behind human progress.
The tremendous leap in Olympic athletic achievement of the past 40 years was not achieved because the organizing committee told competitors to start swimming faster or jumping higher. It happened because Olympic athletes are competitors.
The same thing is true across every sector of our economy. Cell phone makers have not relentlessly improved their products because of national mandates. They've done it to attract customers away from their competitors. Amazon did not diversify its business and create the Kindle because a consortium of Internet vendors demanded it, but because Amazon sought to beat its competition.
The progress we've seen in one industry after another, just as in athletic pursuits, has been the result of competition - something that our education system has sorely lacked. At the dawn of the 21st century, three quarters of American children are still assigned to schools based on where they live, by bureaucrats who have never met them. Stellar public schools cannot grow and take over less successful ones. Ineffective public schools have little fear of losing students to competitors because they have no real competitors - they enjoy a monopoly on $12,000 per pupil in public spending."
Children are not interchangeable widgets. It does not serve their interests to feed them through learning factories on a single, fixed-pace conveyor belt. Some pick up reading quickly and easily fly through ever more challenging texts. Others find reading a chore, progressing more slowly even when encouraged by supportive families and talented teachers. To demand a single pace for all students in all subjects is to simultaneously tie together the laces of the fleet and kick out the crutches of the slow.
Not only is it impossible to create a single set of standards that would serve every child equally well, such standards would fail to significantly improve our schools. High external standards have never been the driving force behind human progress.
The tremendous leap in Olympic athletic achievement of the past 40 years was not achieved because the organizing committee told competitors to start swimming faster or jumping higher. It happened because Olympic athletes are competitors.
The same thing is true across every sector of our economy. Cell phone makers have not relentlessly improved their products because of national mandates. They've done it to attract customers away from their competitors. Amazon did not diversify its business and create the Kindle because a consortium of Internet vendors demanded it, but because Amazon sought to beat its competition.
The progress we've seen in one industry after another, just as in athletic pursuits, has been the result of competition - something that our education system has sorely lacked. At the dawn of the 21st century, three quarters of American children are still assigned to schools based on where they live, by bureaucrats who have never met them. Stellar public schools cannot grow and take over less successful ones. Ineffective public schools have little fear of losing students to competitors because they have no real competitors - they enjoy a monopoly on $12,000 per pupil in public spending."
Who Are the Uninsured? | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary
Who Are the Uninsured? | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Only about 30 percent of the uninsured remain so for more than a year, approximately 16 percent for two years, and less than 2.5 percent for three years or longer. About half are uninsured for six months or less. Notably, because health insurance is too often tied to employment, the working poor who cycle in and out of the job market also cycle in and out of health insurance."
Bipartisan Visa Program Could Fix Nation's Illegal Immigration Mess | Daniel Griswold | Cato Institute: Commentary
Bipartisan Visa Program Could Fix Nation's Illegal Immigration Mess | Daniel Griswold | Cato Institute: Commentary: "The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act legalized 2.7 million illegal immigrants and expanded enforcement, but it did nothing to legalize future flow of workers for an expanding economy. The result was predictable failure.
In the early 1950s, Congress and President Eisenhower faced a similar challenge. The U.S. Border Patrol was making 1 million apprehensions a year. Congress and the president responded with more vigorous enforcement, but also a large increase in visas for temporary workers.
The result: Apprehensions at the border fell by 95%. Given the choice, low-skilled immigrants from Mexico chose by the millions to enter legally rather than illegally."
In the early 1950s, Congress and President Eisenhower faced a similar challenge. The U.S. Border Patrol was making 1 million apprehensions a year. Congress and the president responded with more vigorous enforcement, but also a large increase in visas for temporary workers.
The result: Apprehensions at the border fell by 95%. Given the choice, low-skilled immigrants from Mexico chose by the millions to enter legally rather than illegally."
Banana Republics | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary
Banana Republics | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Who's right? It's hard to say. Philip Giraldi of the American Conservative Defense Alliance may have put it best: 'there is no clear good and bad in what happened in Honduras.'
Without question, the Honduran constitution bars amendment via referendum of eight constitutional provisions, including term limits. However, does that provision apply to an advisory measure which does not directly address presidential tenure? Still, the Supreme Court made a clear and presumptively valid ruling, which bound the president. The National Congress and military should have ensured that the law was respected. Was his forcible removal by the military necessary? Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution states that anyone attempting to change the term limit 'will immediately cease in their functions.' Was it legitimate for the Court to decide that that is what he intended on doing in the future, even if he was not doing so today? If so, presumably he lost his office automatically. That still didn't necessarily warrant the military's bedtime arrest and exile, however.
What were Zelaya's plans? His intentions might have been malign, though Honduras is one of many countries where economic and political elites tend to help each other at the expense of the poor. Moreover, his critics had reason to worry that Zelaya hoped to follow the precedent created by Venezuela's Chavez, who has steadily dismantled legal restraints on presidential power and tenure, and eliminated protections for civil and political liberties. Nevertheless, suspicions alone provide a dubious basis for removing a president. Especially since Zelaya was constrained by the very institutions which removed him from power as well as his lack of popularity. Assume that his ouster was valid. His arrest and exile remain dubious. The latter certainly is extra-constitutional if not expressly illegal."
Without question, the Honduran constitution bars amendment via referendum of eight constitutional provisions, including term limits. However, does that provision apply to an advisory measure which does not directly address presidential tenure? Still, the Supreme Court made a clear and presumptively valid ruling, which bound the president. The National Congress and military should have ensured that the law was respected. Was his forcible removal by the military necessary? Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution states that anyone attempting to change the term limit 'will immediately cease in their functions.' Was it legitimate for the Court to decide that that is what he intended on doing in the future, even if he was not doing so today? If so, presumably he lost his office automatically. That still didn't necessarily warrant the military's bedtime arrest and exile, however.
What were Zelaya's plans? His intentions might have been malign, though Honduras is one of many countries where economic and political elites tend to help each other at the expense of the poor. Moreover, his critics had reason to worry that Zelaya hoped to follow the precedent created by Venezuela's Chavez, who has steadily dismantled legal restraints on presidential power and tenure, and eliminated protections for civil and political liberties. Nevertheless, suspicions alone provide a dubious basis for removing a president. Especially since Zelaya was constrained by the very institutions which removed him from power as well as his lack of popularity. Assume that his ouster was valid. His arrest and exile remain dubious. The latter certainly is extra-constitutional if not expressly illegal."
Long-term Cost Is Steep | Tad DeHaven | Cato Institute: Commentary
Long-term Cost Is Steep | Tad DeHaven | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Unfortunately for proponents of government spending as a panacea, there can be no 'success' without failure. The reason is simple: the government can't spend money without taxing it out of the economy first, or issuing debt, which begets future taxes. When the government taxes something, the result is less of that something. One of the chief rationales politicians give for raising taxes on cigarettes is that it'll result in less smoking. Why would the result be any different for taxes on economic productivity?
In other words, the government can spend billions of dollars 'creating' jobs -- technically a success -- but the cost of those jobs in terms of reduced economic productivity is a failure. And that failure equals lost jobs or jobs not created that otherwise would have been in the absence of the taxes the government needed to 'create' those jobs in the first place."
'As President Barack Obama inadvertently admitted last week, "UPS and FedEx are doing just fine . . . It's the post office that's always having problems."
The Bush administration oversaw one of the most massive increases in federal spending in history. Yet here we are in the midst of the second recession since Bush took office, and a deep one at that. If government spending results in economic growth shouldn't the Bush years have been an economic boom?'
In other words, the government can spend billions of dollars 'creating' jobs -- technically a success -- but the cost of those jobs in terms of reduced economic productivity is a failure. And that failure equals lost jobs or jobs not created that otherwise would have been in the absence of the taxes the government needed to 'create' those jobs in the first place."
'As President Barack Obama inadvertently admitted last week, "UPS and FedEx are doing just fine . . . It's the post office that's always having problems."
The Bush administration oversaw one of the most massive increases in federal spending in history. Yet here we are in the midst of the second recession since Bush took office, and a deep one at that. If government spending results in economic growth shouldn't the Bush years have been an economic boom?'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)