John LaPlante
John R. LaPlante is the managing editor of both the StateHouseCall blog and the State Policy Blog. Mr. LaPlante has written on a range of public policy issues since 1998, including health care and education. His writing credits include the Detroit News, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, the Saint Paul Legal Ledger, and the Wichita Eagle. He holds an M.A. in political science from The Ohio State University.
Saturday, July 4, 2009Odds and EndsBy John LaPlanteHere are some links to stories that I've missed earlier this week: Parsing the health reform arguments, George Newman. An economist offers short evaluations of a dozen commonly heard statements on health care policy. These include ""We need a public plan to keep the private plans honest," to which Newman says, "shelter is just as important, so we should start public housing to keep private builders honest. Oops, we already have that. And that is exactly the point. Think of everything you know about public housing, the image the term conjures up in your mind. If you like public housing you will love public health care." Why it's easy to steal from Medicare: The law doesn't encourage vigorous anti-fraud enforcement, which sends spending up and administrative expenses (as a portion of overall spending), low. Also, "Medicare and Medicaid are forbidden by law from excluding substandard providers, unless they're criminals." Senate bill fines people for refusing health coverage: A congressional reform proposal would require you to have insurance--and presumably, define what that is. So much for an "independence" day; your betters will tell you what you must buy, simply for being human. Health care sharing ministries in WORLD magazine: You want out of the box thinking on health care? How about alternatives to insurance? Low reimbursements:"If doctors are already reluctant to participate in existing government run plans like Medicare and Medicaid, adding an additional public plan could discourage them even further." Wal-Mart supports health plan that will destroy small business: "This is all about introducing a bill that will harm its competitors, particularly businesses of a slightly lower size that can't buy health insurance on the same scale. The company already has a major price and sourcing edge over its competitors, and this law would allow it to exploit that even more." And then, "this kind of rule will have any effect is if it goes after small and medium-sized firms. The large firms on Wal-Mart's scale are almost all offering health insurance to some degree." Wal-Mart joins the rank of health-care corporatists: "Wal-Mart, the nation's largest employer, can afford the costs imposed by an employer mandate. Smaller competitors are likely to find it harder -- and they're not too happy about Wal-Mart's announcement."
|
Friday, July 3, 2009Wal-Mart: Always Corporate Welfare, AlwaysBy John LaPlanteDoes Wal-Mart's embrace of an employer mandate for health care signal some sort of turn towards progressive (or paternalistic) views? Not quite, say one economists, such as this one: "Wal Mart is known for supporting the minimum wage because it hamstrings its competitors. Mandated employer health care (Wal Mart already provides health care insurance to its employees) also has a negative effect on competitors, especially smaller ones."
|
Friday, July 3, 2009Debunking the Obama InfomercialBy John LaPlanteThe Cato Institute produced a fine debunking of the Obama informercial-as-"town hall" event of last week. You can view it here, among other places.
|
Friday, July 3, 2009Enjoy Independence Day While You CanBy John LaPlanteThis time of year we usually have a holiday which casually goes by the name "July Fourth," or a variation thereof. The official holiday this year is today, July 3, which means that's important to remember that officially what we observe--when we're not thinking of cookouts, trips to the beach and what not--is Independence Day. It's appropriate, then, to review the Declaration of Independence, in which the John Hancock and his counterparts from the various colonies review their grievances against King George III and lay out a political philosophy: It states, in part (emphasis added):
In other words, government protects a person's right to act in freedom, not to deliver any particular good or service, such as health care. One of my favorite passages, speaking of King George III, sounds apt for today: "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance." Sounds like today.
|
Thursday, July 2, 2009Against a Right to Health CareBy John LaPlanteWhile it seems that using government to control costs (!) is a major excuse to enact comprehensive health care reform these days, a more long-lasting rationale has been to declare that "health care is a right," and then back that up with government action. Andrew E. Busch takes on this argument in an essay published by the Claremont Review of Books. First up, he argues that a right to health care is not consistent with traditional, historic understandings of what a "right" is:
Americans, Busch says, have rejected other appeals to establish a positive right, including a right to welfare or a right to obtain an abortion and get public funding to do so. (At least one state, Minnesota, actually has deemed a right to have taxpayers fund for one's abortion.) The one example of a "positive" right to taxpayer support--to obtain legal defense in a criminal trial--is uniquely related to the state's power to deprive a person liberty, a situation not at all similar to medical concerns. Busch also mentions two possible justifications for government-paid health care--utilitarianism and the "veil of ignorance" of John Rawls--and found them wanting. If a positive right to health care existed, further, it would trump political rights. "Accepting a positive government obligation to fund social services claimed as a matter of right would lead inexorably to government without limits." He closes with an appeal to the value of letting civil society find a solution to the problems of health care access.
|
Thursday, July 2, 2009Words to Judge Health Care Policy ByBy John LaPlanteIn a classic essay published eight years ago, Milton Friedman asked a question still worth pondering: Why, after a tremendous increase in technology in health care, are we still unhappy?
An advancement in the state of the art combined with dissatisfaction and increased spending is unique to health care, he wrote. Friedman blamed two factors: third-party payments, and the tax-exempt nature of (certain) health care purchases. He admits that European countries do a better job of restraining growth of spending, but at the cost of government rationing. So what's the ideal? He offers the following:
As it stands now, we're getting further away from that ideal.
|
Wednesday, July 1, 2009Give that Man an "A" in Constitutional HistoryBy John LaPlanteAmong the many problems with Congress and the president hatching plans for your health care is they obliterate the distinction between "national" and "federal." It's important to keep those two ideas separate. One of my favorite reference works is Garner's Modern American Usage.The book's publisher, Oxford University Press, sends out daily e-mail missives. Here's today's entry, which seems especially timely:
national; federal Some state legislators are taking notice, and saying "Just a minute now" to the idea of the beltway bandits taking over health care for the whole country.
|
Wednesday, July 1, 2009What's Elective About Life-Saving Surgery?By John LaPlanteCategories: Single-Payer FolliesJohn Stossel rounds up a few horror stories about government-run health care in the U.K. and Canada. Here's my favorite:
|
Tuesday, June 30, 2009Freedom to Go to Pot--or Freedom in Health Care?By John LaPlanteThe previous post on a move towards legalizing marijuana use makes me wonder. Which will come first: Freedom to smoke a joint, or freedom to select the medical treatment and health insurance of your choice, free from the heavy hand of government or the Hobson's choice offered by the HR department of your particular employer? It would be an ironic development if Americans would get the right to light up a maryjane cigarette just as they're losing the ability to light up a tobacco one--or worse, being herded into government-run health care.
|
Tuesday, June 30, 2009Sam's Rolling in His GraveBy John LaPlanteFrom USA Today: Wal-Mart, reviled in some quarters as a puppet-master of the right wing, endorses a play or pay mandate. "We are for an employer mandate which is fair and broad in its coverage." Perhaps the company got tired of being the #1 target, in the business world at least, of the political left. Wal-Mart, Woolworth, whatever, privileging employment-based insurance through the tax code is a bad idea. is bad for workers. An employer mandate locks in that error and adds new problems, such as making it harder to create new jobs.
|
| Total Posts: 1360 | [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 » »| |
|
|
