Red Clay Citizen

Economic Illiterates for Universal Health Care

Complete ignorance of economics and markets in general is the only explanation for those that continue to insist on "universal" or "single-payer" health care. Sheldon Richman explains why in this outstanding article.

"Case in point: How would one see through the flimflam served up as health-care policy without a working knowledge of economic principles? When politicians promise "universal and affordable" medical care and insurance, how else are we to know that those promises can't be kept. Indeed, attempting to keep them would gravely damage our medical care (even more), our prosperity, our liberty."

Richman describes how an insurance market (and therefore the health care industry as a whole) simply can not function properly in the context of, say, Hillary Clinton's vision of health care.

"Clinton declares, "I want to stop the health-insurance companies from discriminating against people because they're sick."

One doesn't know whether to laugh or cry at a statement like that. Is it ignorance, stupidity, or demagoguery?"

The article explains why such a mentality would inevitably lead to price controls, which of course everywhere and always leads to rationing and shortages. How refreshing would it be to find just one politician who could articulate why it is in fact the countless ways in which government interferes with the marketplace that is primarily responsible for escalating health care costs? Don't hold your breath.

"In fact, the politicians love those interventions. So they promise to lower medical costs through direct controls. Even a modest familiarity with how markets work reveals that this would make things worse. Is it too late for Americans to see through the con game?"

Here in North Carolina, we have our own resident useful idiot who has bought the "con game" hook, line and sinker.

Catholics and Immigration: The Changing Face of A Diocese

Earlier this week the News & Observer reported on the findings of the Pew Forum Survey on Religion and Public Life. The results were certainly worth reviewing and made for interesting reading.  Nevertheless, as I transplanted Catholic, I found the comments of Russ Elmayan, the chief operating officer of the Diocese of Raleigh far more interesting. In the article, Mr. Elmayan is quoted as saying there are approximately 210,000 registered Catholics in the diocese, and an estimated 225,000 unregistered Hispanic Catholics who attend mass weekly but do not fill out membership forms. Do we mean to say the number of unregistered Hispanic Catholics actually exceeds the number of registered Anglo-Catholics? No doubt the issue of illegal immigration is driving much of the numbers. While I know the diocese has an official policy of welcoming all illegal immigrants, the reality is the issue has divided those within the church as much as those outside of it. The figures speak of the great challenge facing the Church. Is there a better time for the Church and our communities to begin a public discussion on the issue of illegal immigration?

Corporate Welfare for Cary

Apparently, the Triangle is struggling for jobs.  Or is at least struggling more than the more rural parts of the state.  Why else would the state be giving $5.6 million to lure 300 jobs to poor, desolate, struggling Cary.  It seems that any town that can afford to give a company $500,000 of taxpayer money in corporate welfare isn't really hurting for jobs all that much, are they?

So why exactly are we subsidizing jobs, when according to the N&O:

The expansion underscores the strength of the health-care sector, even amid a slumping economy, and its growing role in this state and region. The aging population has increased demand for medical services and technology, benefiting companies in that sector.

More of those businesses have come to North Carolina in search of the talent necessary to develop equipment and drugs. The state is the nation's third-largest hub for biotechnology, as measured by the number of companies. Much of that activity is centered in the Triangle.

Let's see... rapid growth in health care sector, aging population, high need for the services and many similar businesses already located in the area.

Seems like the market is showing there is already a need for these jobs, so why exactly are we paying Siemens to do something they were going to do already?

The company's own growth is fueled by acquisitions and rising demand for medical imaging, scanners and other technology it makes. That, in turn, has increased the need for hospitals and its own employees to improve their skills on the equipment.

"They're expecting a lot more people going through there for training," said Tom Schaffner, a spokesman for Siemens Medical Solutions in Malvern, Pa.

Oh, there's increased market demand for these products and Siemens is expanding to fill that role. Hmm... growth in the market, more opportunity to make money, need to expand already there to keep up with growth.  So, why exactly are we subsidizing them?

Transportation: Hats off to NC Justice Center

NC Justice Center has put out their new "At the Crossroads" agenda, which has a number of recommendations for transportation reform. In short, it's pretty good. Next week Civitas will release its "Blueprint for Transportation in North Carolina". Observers of the political zigzag in North Carolina may be surprised at the overlaps between our respective recommendations.

To point out a couple of points of divergence, Civitas does not buy into "smart growth" and so-called anti-sprawl measures, which we believe are counterproductive when it comes to both environmental protection and urban livability. Of course, we also think light rail as a form of transit is not only regressive, but a kind of fetish that comes at astronomical (opportunity) costs. Nevertheless, while "At the Crossroads" includes smart growth and rail transit as elements of its overall recommendations, these are mostly muted. Their focus remains primarily on changing both the revenue model and the allocation model for transportation funding and construction statewide.

As a note, I believe both the Civitas and the NC Justice Center approaches to transportation reform will also mean a lot to the preservation of beautiful natural spaces around the state. After all, unnecessary roads don't get built under our common schemes.

NC Justice Center (and, thus also NC Policy Watch) rarely have overlap with the Civitas Institute when it comes to most political issues. Our philosophies are very different. But when it comes down to the future of our state, if we find areas of common ground it becomes necessary to put down our pens-as-swords and extend the olive branch of transpartisan cooperation. This is only my opinion of course, but partisans, politicians, and bureaucrats should pay close attention to both of our recommendations before going any further down that tortuous, crumbling road -- built at great cost by the status quo.

Kudos to NC Justice Center.
-Max Borders

Who Said It?

On the situation in Iraq:

"As for the question of whether the surge is working, I can only state what I witnessed: U.N. staff and those of non-governmental organizations seem to feel they have the right set of circumstances to attempt to scale up their programs. And when I asked the troops if they wanted to go home as soon as possible, they said that they miss home but feel invested in Iraq. They have lost many friends and want to be a part of the humanitarian progress they now feel is possible."

John McCain?
Gen. Petraeus?
President Bush?

Nope.  It's Angelina Jolie -- yes, that Angelina Jolie, the actress.

From the Adam Searing Playbook, or the Reverse?

Now John McCain hates the children. Can the left get any more self-parodying?
(Compare and contrast.)
-Max Borders

The Myth of "Essential Services"

This outstanding article by John Chapman offers a blueprint for NC municipalities. One primary culprit in stagnating economic growth for a city? A high ratio of public employees to citizens:

"the ratio of residents to city employees, a key measure of city government productivity, is 50:1 in Detroit, one of the worst in the United States, but is 203:1 in Indianapolis, one of the best."

Which city would you rather live in right now?

This flies in the face of the "progressive" chatter about the "essential services" that must be provided by an ever-expanding government bureaucracy to ensure an acceptable "quality of life."

Towns and counties concerned about balancing their budgets in light of current and future population growth? Privatize services:

"This is how Indianapolis cut 43% (1,200 workers) of its non–public safety workforce, and shaved $480 million from its budget in 8 years."

But what about all those public employees losing their jobs?

"In fact, during Goldsmith's (Indy's mayor) 8-year tenure, not one city employee became unemployed; the employer merely changed, ... And happily, the public sector union, AFSCME, generally applauded Indianapolis's public-private partnership excellence, especially when workers received incentive bonuses allowed by new ownership and governance."

Of course, we are also bombarded regularly about how citizens "demand" services from their local government. It must follow, naturally, that Indy's citizen's moved out of town because there's no way a reduced public service sector could accommodate such "demands," right?

"During his (Goldsmith's) eight-year tenure as mayor, the city's population increased by nearly 50,000 residents, induced by a more business-friendly environment and its corollary, smaller government."

So the city added 50,000 residents and simultaneously cut nearly half a billion from their budget? Yes, folks, it can be done.

The article is not exclusively devoted to Indianapolis, and is well worth the read. If nothing else, you'll get your money's worth with this quote from Green Bay Mayor Jim Schmitt: "entrepreneurs know what they're doing; the best thing we can do is get out of their way."

Amen.

Healthcare: Talking Points and Elevator Pitches

I came back from our Civitas luncheon yesterday, upset because the panelists largely ignored the bulk of the healthcare results of the DecisionMaker Poll, which I thought were far more important than all the speculating D.G. Martin and Tom Fetzer did on McCain, Clinton, Obama and the mobocratic winds of presidental politics.

Apparently someone felt the same way I did when Fetzer remarked that healthcare is just too "complicated" an issue to get any traction in the election -- despite the fact that affordability in healthcare is the #1 concern among NC voters:

GOP political consultant Tom Fetzer at the Civitas Institute poll luncheon today said health care is too complicated to be a deciding issue in elections. It can't be summarized in 30 seconds.

Let's try 10 seconds:

---

No employer, insurance company, or government bureaucrat knows better than you about your family's health needs. You should have the right to purchase health care and health insurance as you see fit, without governmental restrictions or penalties.

---

I'm open to suggestions to strengthen the pitch.

I wouldn't change a thing.

If I was stumping, I might only add some preliminary rhetorical questions -- making the elevator pitch the punchline:

1) Why don't you have the right to buy less expensive insurance in other states?
2) Why do employers get a tax deduction to buy employees insurance, but you get no tax deduction to buy your own insurance?
3) Why are North Carolinians forced to pay for 47 coverage items like drug abuse treatment and providers like chiropractors -- when they could choose which items they need and pay less?
4) Why don't we know much of what anything costs in this state if we wanted to buy healthcare out-of-pocket?
5) Why are we paying to put more and more people on Medicaid, when we could offer subsidies to buy health insurance at a much lower cost to taxpayers.
6) Why isn't N.C. doing anything about malpractice awards, which drive up costs for everyone?
7) Why does the party in power in this state want our healthcare decisions to be controlled by government?
8) Why does the party in power in this state have no interest in making the health insurance market more competitive, and thus less expensive?
9) Why does NC punish the individual and group markets with costly, burdensome regulations, when that's only about 40 percent of the insurance market?
10) Why is the state trying to put middle class kids on Medicaid, when parents can afford insurance, and when doing so only drives up insurance costs for everyone else?

OK, OK. Maybe I'm proving Fetzer's point to a degree by offering this laundry list of grievances. It does get complicated. But Coletti's point is simple: the healthcare "market", such as it is, is messed up because government has turned it into an expensive, complicated Rube Goldberg machine that has nothing to do with consumer choice and everything to do with bureaucratic, employer, special interest and insurance company control. Government must get out of the way to empower the consumer again. That is your right.
-Max Borders

North Carolina: Losing Our Edge

North Carolina is losing it's edge. This eye-opening state-by-state index by Art Laffer and Steven Moore illustrates convincingly the close correlation between state policy and economic prosperity.

Years of one party rule mean NC is moving toward the Jennifer Granholm/European socialist model that has left Michigan and Old Europe in economic stagnation for years now. Nearly double-digit unemployment, outward migration and capital flight mark the states with policies hostile to entrepreneurship and economic freedom.

The more North Carolina gets into the upper marginal tax rates, continues to overcompensate by giving away corporate welfare (unsustainable), and spends like drunken sailors, the faller we will slip on this index and the further we will sink into the economic malaise that puts us at #19 - fair to middling - but poor next to our southern neighbors (Tennessee 5, Virginia 4, and Georgia 8).
-Max Borders

Crosstabbing the Presidential Race

With the release of our February DecisionMaker poll today, I wanted to explore some of the crosstabs to see if any noticeable trends develop.  We'll start with the Presidential race.

First, as a reminder, we poll likely General election voters, and as such the head-to-head Primary matchups are not a predictor of how the election will turn out.

In the head-to-head of Obama v. Clinton, the poll shows Obama with a 14 point lead -- 38-24.
But if you look at the groups who are more likely primary voters, Obama's lead widens.
Among those who ID themselves as "Very liberal" or "Somewhat liberal" his lead widens to 24 points.
Among those who say they "Always vote Democratic" his lead widens to 22 points.
He has a 56 point lead with African-American voters (66-10).
He leads by at least 21 points in every age demographic except 65+ where he leads by 1%.

Therefore, I'd venture to guess Obama's lead over Clinton is actually higher than the 14 point margin we have it.  I'd say if primary voters are polled, the lead may be up in the high teens to around 20.  All this is really moot though since this race will be over next Tuesday when Obama wins TX and OH (Yes, I'm making that prediction).

When we take a look at the General election matchup, some interesting trends emerge.  Our poll has McCain with a 12 point lead on Clinton (48-36) and a 10 point lead on Obama (46-36).
The fun in the numbers is where the differences occur.
Among Unaffiliateds, McCain leads Clinton 46-36, but Obama leads McCain 43-36.  So McCain goes from a +10 to a -7.  A pretty big swing.
Breaking the unaffiliateds down even more, Obama is making his largest strides among unaffiliated women.  McCain beats Clinton among unaffiliated women by 6, but Obama beats McCain by 17.
I know it's early, but I think we just found one of the key demographics for this year's election.  It'll be interesting to watch these numbers over the next 8 months.

One potential problem for Obama is that his support seems to erode some among self-ID'd "Very liberals" or "Somewhat liberals".  Among "Very liberals" Clinton leads McCain by 73 points (85-12), but Obama only leads by 61 points (75-14), with an strong increase in those who "aren't sure".
Are these just dissatisfied Clinton hard-cores who will come back around in November?  Is there a chance that the Clintonites get upset at what has happened to their candidate that they stay home?

Another interesting sample is that McCain is getting 10% of the African-American vote against Clinton.  Protest vote for Clinton's earlier race baiting in South Carolina?  Quite possibly.

Similarly, many people have theorized that McCain is unappealing to the conservative base and they stay home.  So far, the numbers don't show that happening.  His numbers among "very" and "somewhat" conservative voters hold the same against either Obama or Clinton and the number of "not sures" (the answer dissatisfied conservatives would give) is not any higher among those groups than any other demographic or the population as a whole -- about 16%.  And converse to the argument, among people who say they "always vote Republican" (a truer indication of the base), only 5% say they are undecided and McCain leads Obama 92-3.

The Poll is Live

NC's DecisionMaker Poll is live. Check it out. (Heavy on healthcare.)
-Max Borders

Healthcare: Consumer-Driven Revolution

Check out this Baltimore Sun interview with Greg Scandlen, whom I've met personally and is doing great work to reform healthcare. Here's an excerpt:

Q: In general, can the system best be reformed by changes at the federal level or the state level?

A: We are working on reforming the system independent of any state or federal action. There is already plenty of money in the system; it just isn't allocated properly because the wrong people control the money.

Every penny spent on health care comes from us as citizens. It is simply passed through to insurance companies in the form of premiums, employers in the form of lost wages and government in the form of taxes.

We were willing to let them control our money because we thought they would do a good job of managing it. But they haven't. They have all created a system that is bureaucratic, inefficient, inconvenient, of questionable quality and way too expensive. It is time to take our money back and control it directly. When that happens, health care will become as responsive, efficient, convenient and affordable as the rest of the economy.

This is the conversation we need to be having right now. And yet the public is largely ignorant on this issue. (Read the whole interview.)
-Max Borders

A Note on Polling

As this election season drives forward in the mad dash to May (and then November), please keep one thing in mind when you read article after article on so called "public opinion polls."

Take a look at who they are sampling.

For example, the Elon Poll garnered hundreds of media hits over the weekend and into this week on their supposed election poll.  But a closer look at their sample reveals, they survey North Carolina households, not necessarily registered voters or much less likely voters.  Thus, their "poll" of supposed voter opinion factors in the opinions of a large percentage of people whose opinions do not matter cause they aren't registered and/or don't vote.

In 2004, 85% of the voting age population was registered to vote and only 64% of those voters actually voted.  Thus, only roughly half of the voting age population voted in the last Presidential election.

Therefore, since the Elon Poll surveys random households, we can guestimate that their survey is about half right.  Or to put it another way, they could be equally right or wrong in their survey results.  A 50% margin of error is not good.

Yet, the press continues to report this poll as a reflection of voters' intent, which is completely misleading. (See this AP story and very misleading headline that ran in tens of media outlets).

Many criticize phone or automated polls like the ones conducted by Democratic firm Public Policy Polling as inaccurate based solely on the technology they use.  Say what you want about their technology and the "science" of weighting responses, but at least they are sampling the right audience.  I'll believe the results of their poll over Elon's any day of the week.

Our monthly DecisionMaker poll is set to be released on Wednesday, but keep in mind that we sample likely General election voters.  And as such, I'll be the first to admit that our sample is not an accurate reflection of Primary voters and questions regarding the primary ballot should not be taken as such.  While it may be more accurate than Elon's since we actually sample voters, it is not as accurate as a poll of likely Primary voters.

The focus of our poll is on issues, not the horserace, and how those issues will play out in the General election.  So when you see results for the GOP or Democratic gubernatorial primary, please remember that it is a sample of General election voters.  We put those questions in there mainly because the media is obsessed with the horserace and not issues and frankly, we like the media attention.

I will say, however, that I think our General election polling matchups are pretty spot on.

We'd love to have you out for the poll lunch and release if you are available.  12 noon on Wednesday at the Clarion in downtown Raleigh.  For more information or to sign up, do so here.

No Laffing Matter

Governments - state and federal - should take a careful, hard look at this video.
-Max Borders

Herzlinger Interview: Two Cheers

Harvard Biz-school's Regina Herzlinger is one of the architects of the consumer-driven healthcare revolution. And she gets it mostly right in this interview:

Well, essentially the problem is that you and I have taken part of our salaries and given them to our employers to use in buying health insurance on our behalf. There is no way they could buy our clothes or our homes or anything else as well as we can -- and they don't do a very good job of buying health insurance, either. The only reason we've done that is because they can use our salaries pre-tax to buy health insurance ... The same problem -- i.e., a third party buying on our behalf -- also holds for Medicare, where the purchasing is done by the U.S. government, and for Medicaid, where the purchasing is done by state and local governments.

So the biggest problem with our health care system is that the agents we have appointed to take care of health insurance and health care -- which are the government and businesses -- are not very good at it.

Just one problem: she wants individual mandates, which means she wants everyone to be forced to buy healthcare. While there is something to the argument that subsidizing people to get private care and requiring they get it keeps them off Medicaid (which taxpayers fund anyway), it is somewhat offensive to the idea of individual freedom. It's also weird to require Bill Gates to get insurance. It's also proven not to work that great in Massachusettes. Finally, if you were poor and the government gave you a stipend to buy healthcare, wouldn't you? No need for government except to issue checks.
-Max Borders

Transportation: Stopped Clock, Twice Daily

Three cheers for Jane Pinsky over at the Pulse for this post.
-Max Borders (The worst person in the world.)

Politicians and Paleolithic Collectivism

As people gear up for an election that includes the vacuity of politicians bent on having us hand over our lives and wallets to the collective, it was a relief to come across Don Boudreaux's letter to the Boston Globe in response to someone writing approvingly of presidential windbaggery:

In "Words still have the power to inspire" (February 24) Leonard Pitts Jr. writes approvingly that the President's authority comes chiefly "from his ability to rally the people, to inspire them in some great challenge or crusade."

Reading these words clarified for me an elemental reason for my scorn of conservatives and modern "liberals."  Being libertarian, I find no romance in collective action.  The yearning to be part of a great collective "challenge or crusade" - be it conservative or "liberal" - reflects humans' tribal instincts.  These instincts served a sound purpose during our hunter-gatherer past, but are today at odds with the individualism that makes us free and prosperous.  Even worse, these atavistic instincts are exploited by silver-tongued and arrogant office-seekers such Barack Obama to gain measures of power that no man or woman should ever be trusted with.

I agree. And I particularly like his allusion to our rather unfortunate hunter-gatherer baggage, which I have discussed in some depth here. I share Professor Boudreaux's sentiment that we are better off suppressing egalitarian instincts in groups over 150, as they cannot be successfully implemented at the level of complex society. I would also agree that politicians are simply masters at making us revert to our caveman ways -- dazzling us with empty notions like "the greater good" which are rarely scrutinized by a population saddled with what Nietzsche would have called a herd mentality.
-Max Borders

Breaking Free of the Public School Monopoly

This video is a lesson for NC, not to mention 49 other states.

What's sad, however, is that parents have to fight teacher's unions and bureaucrats so hard to make a simple change for their own children. What considerations trump parental choice? None. That's why we need an education revolution.
-Max Borders

Boudreaux on the US Infrastructure

In reply to this:

So America's infrastructure has suffered what you describe as "decades of underfunding and inattention" ("Before Another Bridge Falls," 23 February 2008).  This fact should shake the foundations of your faith in big government.  Adequately supplying public goods such as roads and bridges ranks among government's least objectionable and most widely agreed upon duties.  And yet government fails even at this core task.

Perhaps one reason for this failure is that government has loaded itself with too many other tasks that drain its attention and resources away from attending well to its chief duties.  Or perhaps government, even at its finest, is incurably clumsy and untrustworthy.  Whatever the reason for government's failure to supply sound infrastructure, don't you see the danger in entrusting this same agency with the power to govern our diets, to "redistribute" our incomes, to regulate our industries, and, indeed, to intervene in nearly all of the ways that you famously demand?

Sounds like a critique of N.C. state government one of us would have made on this blog. North Carolina has over 2500 bridges in poor repair, according to the Reason Foundation, and ranks 31st in overall road performance.
-Max Borders

Great New "Resource"

People interested in energy and environmental issues - but are put off by climate alarmism and anti-market biofuels special interests - will appreciate this information rich new site. Explore.
-Max Borders

Just What Kind of "Change" Do You Think He Means?

It's little wonder that Barack Obama is hammering the word "change" down people's throats every chance he gets. Because if he gets his economic plan implemented, that's all we'll be left with: pocket change.

This Washington Times article pulls back the curtain on the Wizard to reveal all of Obama's rhetoric as simple big government spend and tax policies:

"Sen. Barack Obama is very gloomy about America, and he is aligning himself with the liberal wing of the Democratic party in hopes of coming to the nation's rescue. His proposal? Big-government planning, spending, and taxing — exactly what the nation and the stock market doesn't want to hear."

Has anyone in the mainstream media even dared to question just how Obama plans to pay for all of his programs? The Times article puts forth an educated estimate:

"The Obama spend-o-meter is now up around $800 billion. And tax increases on the rich won't pay for it. The middle class ultimately will shoulder this fiscal burden in terms of higher taxes and lower growth."

$800 billion? That's just under $11,000 for every family of four. Given the countless trillions in unfunded liabilities from Social Security, Medicare, state and local government retiree health benefits, is now the best time to embark on such an ambitious spending spree? Moreover, Obama seems to be ignoring some major economic lessons from around the world:

"It would be quite an irony. While newly emerging nations in Eastern Europe and Asia are lowering the tax penalties on capital — and reaping the economic rewards — Mr. Obama would raise them. Low-rate flat-tax plans are proliferating around the world. Yet Mr. Obama completely ignores this. American competitiveness would suffer enormously under Mr. Obama, as would job opportunities, productivity, and real wages."

Paul Krugman Just Got Destroyed

For all those people who's only source of information on economic issues is the New York Times - more specifically Paul Krugman - take the time with this. It's devastating.

If you're tired of warmed over Keynesianism, of Have-nots rhetoric, and of analytic ineptude, you'll enjoy this very well done critical review of Krugman's work. (What's most interesting is that they have catalogued a number of contradictions and difficulties with his own avowed principles.)
-Max Borders

More on Healthcare: "It's the Cost, Stupid"

Consider this from Grace Marie Turner, commenting on a new study by the Urban Institute:

The number of uninsured people in the U.S. grew by 3.4 million between 2004 and 2006, a time of robust economic growth, largely due to a continued decline in employment-based health insurance. This is the key finding in the latest study by John Holahan of the Urban Institute entitled, "The U.S. Economy and Changes in Health Insurance Coverage, 2000-2006."

Not surprisingly, the declines were greatest among those with lower incomes.

It is worth remembering that every time the cost of health insurance rises by 1%, the number of people with health insurance declines by 200,000 to 300,000 people. During 2004-2006, employer health benefit costs rose by nearly 20%.

It is not surprising that those at the lower end of the income scale, whose wages are most sensitive to benefit cost pressures, are most likely to be impacted.

Is the answer going to be trying to force employers to provide health insurance, as both Sens. Clinton and Obama would do? Especially when the mandated coverage is going to be at least as rich as that provided to members of Congress?

Providing lower-income workers with meaningful subsidies to buy more affordable, portable coverage would seem a much more sound prescription for realistic reform.

To paraphrase the classic campaign line, "It's the costs, stupid."

I'd add to that getting rid of unnecessary mandates, of course. Our progressive friends can dance around the issue of mandate costs all they like, but it looks like - according to this Urban Institute study - we could get significant re-uptake by the private sector of health insurance for employees if we could just lower the costs. Mandates are a good place to cut costs. And while we might argue about which mandated coverage items are "critical" or "essential", some clearly are not -- some of which I have enumerated recently.

More importantly for progressives: it's coming down to a choice between giving people some flexibility to their plans, or forcing coverage and allowing them to opt out altogether. I'd rather see more people with some insurance than fewer (richer) people with Cadillac plans. Something has got to be done and it ain't socialized medicine.

(Update: Here's an article on CNN about getting the young invincibles in with more flexible plans.)
-Max Borders

Obama -- Bowie or Vanilla Ice?

A little fun to kick off a wet and dreary Friday morning.

HT: Campaign Standard blog

False Advertising

Oh those sneaky politicians and the way they will change the name and hide the true meaning of something just to trick people into raising taxes.

Don't be fooled by the so-called, "Congestion Relief Fund."  It's a tax increase to build trains.  And as Wake County Commissioner Tony Gurley said best, "I don't expect the transit plan to create a significant reduction in traffic on the roads."

If they were truly concerned with reducing congestion, we'd be building more roadway capacity, not building some fantasy train system that at most will take 3% of the cars off the road (which will be replaced with 2-3 years of growth).

Trains - 5x the cost and 1/5th the capacity of roads.  So how do we reduce congestion?

Turner's Tirade: A Response

The doctor is in, apparently. Appalled by what he calls a "hate piece" against Adam Searing, the good doctor rushes to a defense like he's on duty in the emergency room. Cape flying in the wind and everything. Alas, he brings little to the frey: half-truths, conspiracy theories, lies, and colorful ad hominem--the usual. It's wearying in its banality and predictability. But I will defend myself:

"He published a hate piece recently on our own Adam Searing, titled Mandate Mania: Does Adam Searing Hate People?  Max implies that, yes, Adam does hate people."

Actually, I don't. I say specifically that he doesn't. One need only read carefully where I write "Does Adam Searing Hate people? No, he hates freedom." But if Turner could see beyond his own guilt-goggles and his own Goebbels-esque manner of writing, he might see that my question - Does Adam Searing Hate People? - was an allusion to Searing's own dubious tactic of accusing everyone of "hating children" (examples here, and here). It's a ridiculous tactic, which is why I rather enjoyed the parody. Perhaps before Turner accuses me, he should turn his hate-filled rant on his colleague-in-propaganda, the "gentleman" Adam Searing.

"In addition, Max knows this about Adam: he lies to himself, he wants you to pay for things you don't need, he wants poor people to be uninsured (an odd accusation against the Director of the North Carolina Health Access Coalition), he hates freedom, and finally, Max knows that "Adam thinks he's smarter than you.""

Yep. I know he thinks he's smarter than us and so does Turner, otherwise they would'nt advocate for people and their families to be FORCED into buying chiropractic coverage and marriage therapy in their health plans. It's in their natures. They think they know better, which is why that type craves domination over others and their sovereign choices.

"Adam is too much of a gentleman to rebut Borders' vitriolic post. But I'm not."

No, no one can accuse Turner of being a gentleman.

"Never forget…the only thing they care about is their free-market ideology.  Everything else is irrelevant."

Perhaps the only truth Turner has ever spoken or written: Yes, I care only about free-market ideology because such is the only ideology that respects an individual's right to live his or her life as he/she chooses, to exchange, collaborate, and cooperate freely with others -- with as little coercion from elitist, arrogant nanny-statists like Turner as humanly possible. I call that caring about human beings and desiring to live in peace.

"Borders responded to a straight-forward post from Adam which asked gubernatorial candidate Bob Orr which mandates he was willing to eliminate in his "market based" health plan."

False, Searing didn't ask Orr to eliminate his market based plan. Go back and read the post. Typical example of wishes fathering lies.

"Borders' venomous response included this bullsh*t quote: N.C.'s mandates account for 45-50% of premium costs in North Carolina.This is a lie."

Oh, really?

"When I asked Max where his data was generated, he referred me to this report by this organization [CAHI].  Borders' "data" is from a health insurance lobbying group [false], who describe their mission as "an active advocate for market-oriented solutions to the problems in America's health care system."

People lobbying for affordable healthcare? Oh, the ignominy. But Turner had better watch himself. Quick to don the tinfoil hat, he doesn't realize that CAHI more often than not works against the interests of health insurers who benefit from complex state regulations.

"Hardly an objective source, don't you know, since their clients stand to benefit directly from their "research findings."  Max is the ever useful tool to be exploited for special interest profit."

One wonders if Turner has ever read this blog. If he knew me, he would know how I feel about special interests. Nevermind that special interests can't exist in a truly free market. But what's worse is that he is one himself. As a doctor, he won't benefit quite so much from a choice-based, competitive, consumer driven system. He won't be able to milk the system, to ding the insurance pool for god knows what to suppliment his lavish lifestyle. Sorry pot, I'm no kettle... But let me not detour any longer:

Steve Turner's favorite fallacy is to question data because they are assembled by organizations he doesn't like. But this is a time-tested fallacy -- time tested, because the stupid both believe it and wield it. I don't think Turner is that stupid, so he must be calculatingly fallacious. Nevertheless, any analyst worth his salt checks the data not the source. Nevermind that CAHI's a reputable organization whose credibility rests entirely on thorough, well-collected, well-documented data. Turner's too lazy to check their data, so he resorts to typical tactics like the genetic fallacy. But it get's better...

"Alas, the little Emperor has no clothes, and Max has no data specific to North Carolina."

Cute, but here's the pdf again, and it is NC specific. One need only see the column for NC among 49 other states. If one wants to question CAHI's data, go with god, but treat the data.

"By the way, if you want a list of other treatments considered "optional" (ie. mandated) by Max's resource, they  also list: chemotherapy, emergency services, prescription drugs, well-child care (including immunizations), hospice care, diabetic supplies, cleft palate repair, and mastectomy, among others.  I don't know about you, but most of my patients would consider these mandates essential to care, not Cadillac care."

Interesting. Turner's failed to explain why people wouldn't or couldn't choose such "essential" services freely. After all, I've called for a compromise found in many, many other states called mandate lite. But Turner's more interested in vitrol than ideas. More importantly, he's also failed to tell us why a 55-year-old couple is worried about cleft palate coverage when they need other services. Why any man is worried about mastectomy? Why single people should be worried about well child care? Is this a failure of his medical school or of common sense? In any case, one wonders if his passion to defend his friend has gotten Turner in over his head. You might think doctors understand the minutiae of the healthcare system. They don't. They just benefit from it -- and benefit well. (Another reason I never fail to be astounded at how wealthy folks can be so sanctimonious from the third stories of their million dollar homes.)

"The majority of so-called mandates are part of standard insurance coverage."

I think I've already debunked this claim.

"What Max calls "coercive" the rest of us, physicians and patients alike, call "standard of care."" 

Funny how menopausal women should have standard cleft palate care, according to Turner, but I digress... Leftist legerdemain is self-parodying.

"Two respected resources regarding health care costs (unlike Max Borders sham resources) do not even mention insurance mandates as cost drivers.  Adam links to them here in his latest post.  Neither report references mandates, which would be hard to believe if they actually accounted for 45-50% of premium costs as they do in Max's imagination."

Wow! Now Turner is citing research that isn't there! Shockingly ignorant. But it gets better...

"[B]ut what is a reasonable estimate of the cost of mandates? It is likely somewhere between 5% and 7.6% of premium costs according to The New York Times, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Minnesota Department of Health."

Okay, let me collect my breath from laughter. First, the Grey Lady a paragon of truth seeking and objectivity? Cute, but if North Carolina's mandates cost between 5% and 7.6% that would mean we only had mental health parity, which is estimated to cost in that range in most states. We'll take a closer look at Turner's references, later, but we can see straight away that the Texas study he cites from 2000 was only looking at 13 mandates. North Carolina has 47.

"Think of it like this: these mandates function as a consumer protection program."

You have to buy x, y, z, and we're protecting you. Paternalism at its best. Please get out of my life!

"They are nothing more than partisan hacks, as blinkered by their hate-filled ideology as any tribal leader in Northwest Pakistan."

That sort of nonsense speaks for itself. Turner and the leftist MO has boiled down to this: if you don't comply, you're 'hate-filled.' But free people know better than this and we are not prepared to let the Steve Turners of the world order us around from their mansions or their bland bureaucratic offices like we are either chattle in need of their help, or sacrificial animals from which resources may be taken willy-nilly to their pet projects and utopian plots done in the name of actually caring (name only). No, I don't hate people like him. But I have nothing but contempt for everything he stands for, because what he stands for is contrary to freedom and human dignity.
-Max Borders

Tire Maker Moves Out of NC

Continental Tire announced today that it is moving its headquarters from Charlotte across the state line to Lancaster County, SC.

But wait, you ask, didn't we just spend $60 million of taxpayer dollars on tire companies to keep workers here in NC?

Yep, we did, but that money is going to companies located in key constituencies in Eastern NC (Tony Rand and Jim Hunt's hometowns), not a corporate headquarters in Charlotte.

Apparently, jobs in Charlotte (or anywhere else in NC as we pointed out here) aren't as important as jobs in the hometowns of Democratic Party leaders.

This is just one more example of why the corporate welfare game is inherently unfair.  The state now chooses which jobs are more important than others and subsidizes the "winners", and when the ability for that happens, the ability for the appearance that politics and/or corruption is distorting the picture enters as well.  End it all, treat every business the same and get the foul stench of favoritism out of the corporate handouts.

Accomplishments? Who Needs Those?

Left-leaning windbag Chris Matthews puts the screws to an Obama supporter Tex. State Sen. Kirk Watson on live television last night.  Think the Obama campaign has a new list of talking points to distribute to surrogates?

Universal Health Care: Lessons from Canada

Those on the left that want a government takeover - or at minimum sharply more government control - over the US healthcare system often mention Canada as a model we should strive to emulate.

This Toronto Star article reminds us yet again why healthcare is too important to hand over to government.

The architect of Quebec's now-overburdened public health-care system is proposing a strong and controversial remedy that includes further privatization and user fees of up to $100 for people to see their family doctor.

In a 338-page report, former provincial Liberal health minister Claude Castonguay concluded that Quebec can no longer sustain the annual growth in health-care costs. The province currently spends about $24 billion annually on health care, or about 40 per cent of its budget.

"If nothing is done, at one point we will reach a crisis point ... this is why we say it is urgent to act," Castonguay said. "There's no miracle solution, there is no simple solution."

Recommendations include a dose of (gasp!) privatization to ease the crushing financial burden of the unsustainable program and to help combat "the province's doctor shortage."

Hmm, unsustainable increases in health care costs coupled with doctor shortages. How could these things happen in Canada's publicly-funded universal system?  Those things would never happen here if Hillary or Obama get their way...right?

How Cool! Wacky Traffic Circles

Let's get innovative! (Yes, yes, cost/benefit analysis is in order, but like I said, I love traffic circles.)
-Max Borders

Boudreaux on Economic Alchemy

Certainly a lesson for this state, too...

Like economic alchemists, Senators Clinton and Obama peddle plans to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on various government projects that will create millions of jobs ("Obama's economic plan," February 20).

Creating jobs - creating demand for workers - is no challenge.  Vandals and arsonists do so routinely.  What IS a challenge is to create opportunities for workers to earn good incomes while producing real value for others, where value is confidently measured by the amounts that buyers voluntarily pay for what is produced.  As far as I know, Sens. Clinton and Obama (and, for that matter, McCain) have never created a business whose success relied upon producing outputs efficiently and then selling these outputs at prices attractive to consumers.

So why suppose that any of their "plans" to create innovative industries and jobs are anything other than the cheap fantasies of self-important people accustomed to spending other people's money?

-Max Borders

Walker's Wisdom

You better look out: our entitlement system is unsustainable. This, unlike global warming, is a real problem and we can't grow our way out of it.
-Max Borders

Mandate Mania: Does Adam Searing Hate People?

No matter what one thinks about Bob Orr's health plan - and there is much that is wanting - his call to eliminate some of the more costly and unnecessary mandates is not a bad one as nanny statist Adam Searing would have you believe here. He uses one of the oldest tricks in the book to argue in favor of government mandates -- take the seemingly unobjectionable ones and frontload them. For example (get out out your hankerchief):

Perhaps the one requiring insurance companies to allow a woman at least two days in the hospital after the birth of a child – the eliminate drive-through delivery mandate.  Or maybe he’d like to get rid of the mandate requiring it to be left up to a woman and her doctor as to how much hospital care she needs after a mastectomy.  Maybe he’d like to eliminate the newborn hearing screening mandate – now there’s one we sure don’t need.  He probably isn’t worried about getting tested for prostate cancer because he’s got great health coverage himself – so he’d be OK with deleting the colorectal cancer screening mandate.  Or how about eliminating coverage for detection of ovarian cancer?

Searing may have found some heartstrings to tug about these few out of the 47 odd mandates, but he omits some absolute doozies -- hiding behind the same moral highground the government does in the name of regulating your life and healthcare choices:

-pastoral counselors,
-marriage therapists,
-drug abuse treatment,
-alcohol abuse treatment,
-contraceptives,
-chiropractors, and
-clinical trials.   

Yes, that's chiropractic, which I would never purchase willingly and consider it snakeoil medicine. So when Adam says: "Orr ought to be asked exactly which mandates he would choose to eliminate." We've certainly given him some items that should at least be considered subject to review. After all, why should single folks pay for marriage therapy? (Why is this lifestyle choice being considered medical at all?) Why should atheists pay for religious counseling? Why can't people who want such counseling - yes, even if it's for hospice care - find such counseling at their own church, synagogue or mosque? Why should any North Carolinian be forced to pay for people who repeatedly make bad choices like taking drugs? We can go on and on (without crocodile tears). Adam Searing doesn't care that you have to pay for these -- even if you're struggling to make ends meet. But it gets worse.

Adam Searing wants you to think he and his kind care about people, and that's why he supports such costly and draconian mandates. For Adam and his friends, caring always means coerced compassion and or regulation.

What he doesn't want you to know is that many people elect to go uninsured because they believe health insurance premiums are too expensive--and they're too expensive - in great part - because of these mandates. Indeed, N.C.'s mandates account for 45-50% of premium costs in North Carolina. Looks like Searing is either lying to himself, wants people to pay for things they don't want or need, or wants poor and middle class people to go uninsured. Does Searing hate people?

If we could take out some mandates, or at least introduce "Mandate Lite" legislation found in many other states, we would make insurance affordable for a lot more people -- reducing the number of uninsured in our state. Or, we could simply give people the freedom to buy out of state. Doesn't Adam Searing want people to be free? Doesn't look that way.

He's also overlooking the fact that a majority of people with insurance in North Carolina get it through employers that are exempted by ERISA (often big, multi-state companies), which means only the individual market has to comply with the expensive N.C. regulations. (Oh, and ERISA exempt folks aren't dropping like flies. Why so?  People can make informed healthcare choices about themselves and their families.) But the individual and small group markets (to which the N.C. mandates apply) is often made up of people who are unemployed, marginally employed, or self-employed--people who would like to have more healthcare options and less expensive coverage--not Cadillac plans. Searing doesn't care, he'd rather it be the case that the few people who can afford coverage be forced to pay extra for the N.C. Cadillac plan, than have more people have tailored coverage that may or may not include chiropractors, pastors, and drug-abuse treatment - or even two days hospitalization post-partum - as options.

Oh, does Adam Searing like that so many of these mandates were put in to benefit special interests? Sure seems that way. Dirty politicians and shady back-crackers have Adam to thank.

My guess is, just as with SCHIP, Adam Searing wants insurance premiums to be expensive. (Here's why.) He wants people who don't understand the costly regulatory scheme he advocates to cry uncle and ask the government for "free" healthcare like they have in Canada, which keeps people waiting for months and months to mend broken legs. Does Adam Searing Hate people? No, he hates freedom. He hates choice. He thinks he is smarter than you and can make better choices for your family than you. But we know better, don't we?
-Max Borders

Election 2008: Tyler Cowen Nails It

An article for zealots, worry worts, partisans, and democracy fetishists. Happy Presidents Day.
-Max Borders

Competitive, Targeted Teacher Pay?

As a recent college graduate, I am a prime example of why we are suffering from a shortage of teachers. After graduating with a degree in engineering, I realized I had a desire to teach and began looking in to what it would take to do so.  With my engineering background, I realized I might make a good candidate for a high school math teacher.

I found that if I invested enough time, I could get certified to teach math, but there was a problem: money. After looking into the well-defined pay grades for teachers with zero years of experience, I realized I would make less than $30,000 a year − $29,750 to be exact.  I also saw the less-than-awe-inspiring pay increases each year. Despite my passion for teaching, I began to pursue other career goals.  It made me wonder how many other opportunities for well-qualified teachers our state has missed due to uncompetitive salaries.

Over the past decade state government has provided North Carolina teachers with generous pay raises and teaching bonuses. It seems little if any of those resources have been have directed toward raising starting salaries for new teachers. It is true when you include compensation and benefits, pay for North Carolina teachers is above the national average. It is also true that in many areas starting salaries for new teachers are too low to attract qualified young professionals. Raising starting teacher salaries needn’t be difficult. It can be done by better targeting existing resources and by creating more innovative pay plans. Making starting teacher salaries more competitive is a small step, but one that could have a big impact on convincing others like myself to return to the classroom and do their part in ending our statewide teacher shortage.
-Kyle Ward

Heathcare Reform: Government is the Problem, Not the Solution

This Fort-Worth Star Telegram article (pdf) written by Mary Katherine Stout of the Texas Public Policy Foundation hits the nail squarely on the head:

"The federal and state governments have driven up the cost of health insurance and healthcare with Byzantine regulations, outdated tax policies and price-setting that distorts the marketplace."

As blogged here previously, such government intrusion into the health care industry has driven up insurance premiums and health care costs to the point where many simply cry "uncle" and wish for a government takeover of the system. Stout recognizes that such people should be careful what they wish for:

Let's face it, there are systemic problems inherent in the government provision of services. Sure we have experienced a serious drought here in NC, but explain to me why in the most prosperous nation in the history of the planet we can not do a better job at providing perhaps the least scarce resource in the world to our citizens? Are these the same bureaucrats we want to entrust with our health? Stout crystallizes this sentiment superbly:

"It is hard to imagine that a government that addresses customer service complaints about long lines at the post office by taking the clocks off the walls can ever handle the complex and deeply personal healthcare decisions of more than 300 million people."

Healthcare: Ignoring a Good Idea because it's Bush's

The left has been ignoring a great idea in healthcare - the 2006 SOTU healthcare proposal, with a nice elaboration here. I agree with Grace Marie Turner (basically the architect of the idea) that instead of deductions, use refundible tax credits. It's not totally free market. But, Lawd help us, if we're going to subsidize anything, let it be healthcare and not corn. Of course, the left knows that Schip is driving the "death spiral" by pulling kids from the risk pool; because their ultimate goal is Cubacare as I explain here.
-Max Borders

(Oh yeah: The next time you discuss healthcare with anyone, ask -- Why can't we buy health insurance in other states?)

Ethanol: We're Waiting...

Ethanol? The debate is over. Now that a number of scientists have shown conclusively what we already knew, (knew, knew), when are we going to get some mea culpas from Congress, from the Greens, and from the General Assembly right here in North Carolina?

(Janet Cowell and Charles Albertson were particularly egregious in their rush to judgment, followed by their rush to purloin taxpayers of ethanol special interest dollars they were warned repeatedly would never work to slow global warming.)

It is, and always has been, an example of the wish fathering the lie -- the desire by the left to control the energy sector a la Stalin (the "Commanding Heights). We are waiting for those mea culpas. We are waiting for you to give us the tax dollars you extorted from us in an effort to garner political support from special interests--all so you could play energy gods in the name of global warming.
-Max Borders

Another Business Freely Choosing to go Smoke-Free

Without a edict from government, Sheraton Hotels have decided to go entirely smoke-free.

After seeing business after business deciding on its own to set its own smoking policy, can we all now realize this is the best way to go?

Transportation: Sigh...Fitzsimon Lying by Omission Again

Why does Chris Fitzsimon continue to rehash this already debunked argument? Because the left believes the more you repeat a lie (even if by omission), the more likely people are to believe it.

Transfers from the HTF - statutory or raided - need to go.
-Max Borders

The British View of Our Vacuous Election Mantras

Change? OK. And...what?
-Max Borders

Jack Hawke, Keith Richards, and Pat McCrory

Well, here's a goodbye and good luck to our old War Hawke.

Dome has a funny post marking his departure from Civitas and subsequent return to politics. Keith Richards is old, to be sure, but still knows how to rock and roll. Does Jack Hawke? We'll see, I guess.

Anyway, we'll miss you, Jack. But we understand: this stuff is your comparative advantage.
-Max Borders

Green Agenda Unraveling?

Articles like this in the Wall Street Journal suggest that people are starting to cotton onto the notion that ethanol was never green, but a boondoggle concocted by the corn-lobby. Groups like the NRDC should be ashamed for ignoring the evidence, ignoring the warnings.

North Carolina's enviro-ag nexus has gotten in on the special interest free-for-all. The next time you hear a leftist even breath a word about corporatations, remind them that their ilk sold out to special interests a long time ago--evidence be damned.
-Max Borders

Welcome to the Metaverse

I've always told my friends: "you can't just read about Open Croquet, you have to see it demonstrated."
Now you can.

If you want to read why Second Life Won't Get a Third, I'll tell you. In any case, collaborating freely in co-creative worlds is your future. Get ready.

-Max Borders