Milton Friedman is right as far as he takes it. The free market is the most effective system the world has known for producing wealth and reducing poverty. What he doesn't say in this video clip is that the free market, because it is limited to voluntary exchange, is also the most moral system for reducing poverty. A system which employs the initiation of force will not be as effective--it can only redistribute wealth not create it--but even more importantly, it entails in its methods the destruction of civil society.
(HT Ideas Matter)
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Thursday, March 10, 2011
The Perverse Incentives of the PPACA
Health policy analyst, Dr. John Goodman, testified yesterday before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health. Below is is 5 minute opening statement. He quickly goes through several o fteh perverse incentives written into the structure of the law which will make health care more expensive and still fail to solve the problem of access. You can read the written statement here.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Entrepreneurs Could Solve the HeathCare Crisis....if we would let them get rich
In any other field, Jeffrey Brenner would be a millionaire. But because he’s in health care, he doesn’t know how he’s going to make ends meet. Like entrepreneurs in every market, Brenner thought outside the box. He discovered an ingenious way of lowering health care costs: focus on the “hot spots” of medicine — the high-utilizing, high spending patients — and solve their problems with unconventional care...So how much does Medicare reward Dr. Brenner for all the savings he creates for our nation’s largest health plan? Zip. Zero. Nada. How much does Medicaid pay for all the savings it realizes? Zilch. Zippo. Not a penny...
No one knows if Brenner’s techniques can be replicated (any more than we know if the medical practices of the Mayo Clinic or the Cleveland Clinic can be replicated). But there’s one way to find out: let Brenner become rich. Rich? Yes, rich...
[Gawande] actually believes that ObamaCare is going to liberate Brenner and people like him.
When is the last time you heard Barack Obama say he wants entrepreneurs to get rich solving the nation’s most pressing health care problems? When is the last time you heard him say he wants anyone to get rich doing anything? When is the last time you heard him say even a kind word about people who get rich?
No? Never? Not even once? Case closed.
Read the rest of the story from John Goodman. It's both inspiring, and infuriating.
.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Message to The Forgotten Man
I am receiving feeds through a blog I have been following called The Forgotten Man which now takes me to a page titled "I'm Just left behind."
To the author of the recent posts:
Just want to let you know I am reading your posts, but there is no way for me to respond.
Judge Vinson Rules! (again)
Today, Judge Vinson released his response to the Government's request for a "clarification" of his ruling in Florida v. HHS. If you have been closely following the court cases for the constitutionality of the individual mandate, this order reads like the rise to the climax of a great suspense drama. In it, the government lawyers are thoroughly spanked for misbehaving---and then, in the interests of moving things forward as quickly as possible towards a Supreme Court ruling, Judge Vinson grants the government a stay it did not officially request.
What does all this mean?
At the end of January, Judge Vinson ruled that the individual mandate was unconstitutional, and the because the mandate is an integral part of the legislation, it can not be severed without fatally undermining the greater regulatory intent of the law. For these reasons, the entire law was struck down. Judge Vinson granted declaratory relief, but not injunctive relief, to the plaintiff because "the "declaratory judgement was expected to be treated as the "practical" and "functional equivalent of an injunction"--based on a "long standing presumption that the defendants [i.e. the government] themselves identified and agreed to be bound by." (see today's order, page 14.) Judge Vinson explained today that he expected the government to promptly respond to his ruling with a request for a stay pending appeal--not for the government to completely ignore his ruling, and then file a belated request for a "clarification" of a ruling which was perfectly clear. Vinson indicated that the game-playing delay tactics by the government lawyers are recognized for what they are and will NOT be tolerated.
So after having previously ruled that implementation of the PPACA should halt, why the apparent turn-around by granting a stay of execution of his previous ruling?
Judge Vinson recognizes the complexity of the case, and that it will not be resolved until the Supreme Court finalizes its interpretation. Although the plaintiffs are suffering injury under continuation of the law, given the mixed current rulings (see below) and the uncertainty of the final ruling, the disruption will be greater if the law is halted while under appeal.
The 20 page "Order" is interesting and fun to read--even if you haven't had time to read the eloquent legal discussion in Vinson's original ruling.
The stakes are high here. Nothing less than the nature of our government: is it all-powerful, or limited? If limited, what are the boundaries?
I strongly recommend reading Vinson's original ruling. He provides a well written synopsis of the evolution of Commerce Clause interpretation. For an interesting alternative analysis, read Randy Barnett's amicus curiae, or his longer article "Commandeering the People: Why the individual Mandate is Unconstitutional." If you really get into it, there are the rest of the current court rulings and a few of the relevant landmark Supreme court cases listed below.
(If you want just a few choice quotes from today's order, you'll find some here.)
Happy reading.
Current Individual Mandate law suit rulings
Case #1 – individual mandate ruled constitutional
http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/News/Docs/09714485866.pdf
Randy Barnett amicus curiae – very worthwhile reading.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/legalbriefs/TMoreVObama.pdf
Case #2 – individual mandate ruled constitutional
http://www.vawd.uscourts.gov/OPINIONS/MOON/LIBERTYUNIVERSITYVGEITHNER.PDF
Case #3 – individual mandate ruled unconstitutional, and severable
http://www.oag.state.va.us/press_releases/Cuccinelli/Health%20Care%20Memorandum%20Opinion.pdf
Case #4 – individual mandate ruled unconstitutional and nonseverable, declaratory relief granted; injunctive relief denied as unnecessary because declartory relief is sufficient
Case #5 – individual mandate ruled constitutional
Mead v. Holder 02-22-11
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20110223healthMemoMead.pdf
Case #4 – Order 03-03-11
Judge Vinson “clarifies” that he had clearly ruled the PPACA unconstitutional and expected the Government to either quickly file appeal or cease implementing the law.
A stay of his declaratory injunction is granted provided the Government files a notice for an expedited appeal within seven days.
http://www.politico.com/pdf/PPM187_vinson.pdf
Key Landmark Supreme Court Cases on the Commerce Clause
Wickard v. Filburn (1942) http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/wickard.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)