My brother's latest article

steveinaz

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/27/crowding-freedom-out-of-the-market/

thsmith

Interesting article and a bit of an eye opener for me anyway. Thanks Steve for sharing.

steveinaz

You bet. Dave's book, a ten year project, will be released in 2011. It will be titled: "The Moral Foundation of Economic Behavior."

potee

A great article and it supports the dangerous road we're heading down. That road is supported by those who want everything given to them without any effort from themselves. They want the the people who work and labor to support them. I for one am worried.

PoTee

By the way KUDOS to your brother.

steveinaz

You'd love his healthcare alternative--a voucher based system that would provide 100% citizen coverage (catestrophic health care)--by default. Nothing is free, it would necessitate an (approximate) 7% national sales tax. This, of course, is a seriously abbreviated explaination, and doesn't do justice to incredibly smart solutions he presents.

I'll see if I can find the article.

steveinaz

Here it is:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2009/0810/p09s01-coop.html

mhardy6647

Cool; I am working my way through it; the prose is a bit - dense - in places, viz.

This means that government will now compel private citizens to do something that our country has been able to thrive for more than 234 years without government ever having compelled its citizens to do before.

This sentence might have actually been more succinct if rendered in German!

steveinaz

Yeah, that one was a challenge to navigate.

mhardy6647

His is an interesting thesis. I enjoyed reading the article; might even tackle the book. My daughter's an economist... me, however, not so much.

quadzilla

Wiat, I thought the main thing that was upsetting people regarding the health care reform legislation that was passed was that it required people to buy health insurance, thus negating the entire premise of the article; that people can just drop out of the system until they get sick. Man, it gets harder to follow the fear every day.

That said, I would agree that in a free society (not necessarily free markets, as truly free markets are generally not nearly as great an idea as most people mistakenly think they are... since the end result of any truly free market is almost invariably a monopoly, and all the badness that represents. what most people really want when they say free market is actually a well regulated and competitive market), people should generally be free to do as they wish except where doing so would bring harm to others. But we passed that point a long time ago, and started down that road when we sent the first lawyer to Washington. Well, actually, if was Philadelphia back then, but you know what I mean.

mhardy6647

quadzilla wrote: »

Wiat, I thought the main thing that was upsetting people regarding the health care reform legislation that was passed was that it required people to buy health insurance, thus negating the entire premise of the article; that people can just drop out of the system until they get sick. Man, it gets harder to follow the fear every day.

The article's premise was that the drop-out "loophole" engendered by eliminating the pre-existing conditions clause gives lawmakers the ability to mandate insurance to prevent drop-outs. The same one-two punch, the author posits, could be applied in other circumstances to provide a streamlined path to government mandates.

steveinaz

We were brought up in a Democratic home; our father being a union sheet metal mechanic full time, and a realestate agent on the weekends. This gave all of us an interesting perspective on politics, and though all 5 of us are conservatives--we haven't forgotten where we come from. None of us are extreme in our views, because we realize you can't simply ignore that which you may not agree with. Our views typically include success as a Nation as the foundation of any new idea/solution/plan, because at the end of the day, we also have a responsibility to our country. I think this unique perspective shows itself in Dave's writings/ideas, and in my opinion lends a tremendous amount of credibility to his approach.

cnh

That's really interesting. I am the child of steelworker and a seamstress (who became an academic as well)....what used to be two of the largest Unions in the U.S. Also come from a similar, but immigrant family of laborers. My grandmother arrived in the U.S. with my father during the Great Depression--couldn't stop speaking about FDR and she was not fully literate.

It's an interesting perspective. One of my colleagues in Government used to be a journalist in Seattle so the Public Intellectual who can discuss matters of concern is very familiar here and an important part of Democracy, whatever your politics are.

cnh

punk-roc

steveinaz wrote: »

You bet. Dave's book, a ten year project, will be released in 2011. It will be titled: "The Moral Foundation of Economic Behavior."

Make sure to keep us posted on when that book is officially released.. I would be interested in reading that book for sure..

I have a growing interest in Utilitarian-based ethical philosphy, in regard to economics and bet your brother is far better informed on various ethical philosophies and how they are supposed to interact with our economoic policies and behavior

Jason

steveinaz

Oxford University Press will be the publisher.

tonyb

Good article Steve, but not really anything new there that most informed people don't allready know. He does do a good job of explaining it,but I would propose to break it down even further as to what the government can/can't do.In my opinion, thats where the big divide in our country is right now. Between those who think the gov. should do most things for you and those who want them to stay out of their life as much as possible. Either way, there are tons of books,articles, on both sides to do your own homework.

dorourke07

Interesting, but the ending premise seems to be that I pay more taxes.....I thought that was the issue with Obamacare. That part woulld still be run by the government. We don't want to pay more taxes and I don't like insure companies making decisions. It seems more complicated than this.

TECHNOKID

Little out of my turf here so excuse the intrusion, I simply want to provide a testimony of the security / serenity behing social Health Care System provides.

As a slowly aging Canadian which of course have greater health concerns with age I can go about my life peacefully knowing that if I have health issues / concerns that require hospitalization or special care I will not as a midle class citizen be turned away because my wallet does not allow me to be treated. Having been raised in such a system from my early days I can hardly conceive a country that values the life of it citizens by their assets or market value :eek: IMHO, life is sacred and it is a mandatory duty for any respectfull government / society to do everything in their power and at any cost to save the life of its citizens regardless of their religion, beliefs and society status. Personally it is my opinion that the US is moving in the right direction it is simply a matter of keeping the mind open along with all communication channels in order to fine tune any areas which might be disadvantegeous to the US in general.

Early this year (actually Feb. 1st) I was suddenly hospitalized, no warning, my family doctor didn't know what was going on with me, he didn't have a clue what so ever. I went across the street with the paperwork for the tests to be performed, all I had to do is to show my health and hospital cards. I spent the entire month of February in Hospital. I had surgery while in the hospital, I was medicated many times daily. After I left the hospital, I was treated externally 3 times a day, 7 days a week and this for close to a month.

After that, I voluntered to do the treathments from home. From there, my personal health care insurance (work) took a large portion of the tab and after proof of my return the hospital was charged for the remainder of the expense. In the advent that I did not have insurance from work / of my own, it is then mandatory that I paid the governement (Quebec) a society share for prescribed medication insurance so if my personal insurance wasn't taking the tab, this mandatory government insurance would have covered the cost through this social insurance. I am still followed by my family doctor along with my local hospital and all is necessary from me is to show my Health Care card and hospital card to get the treathments as required withouth any budgetting concerns.

To finish this story, if this system was not in place I would have surely died sometime this year. Society Health care is indeed expensive but IMHO my life and quality of life has much more value than the approximately 45% of my astronomic income taxes I have been paying for roughly 40 years now. Surely it cost thousands of dollars to put me and keep me back-up on my feet but I do consider the investment a very sound investment. I surely hope the same peace of mind for my neighbour / cousin the US as I think he deserves that quality of life just as much as I and all Canadians do

txcoastal1

Not sure how the Canadian Gov handles thing but it takes $15.00 to produce a nickel in the U.S...Thats why I quit public bidding on Gov projects. And when Obama said "healthcare could be paid for by cleaning up Medicare and Social Security"...my reaction was "OK then let's start there and then we will talk"...haven't heard anything on that since...and that statement was not taken out of context

j allen

The first article was interesting. The second one was absolutely fascinating. Is there going to a more in-depth breakdown of that idea in the book? I would probably pick it up just for that. I like the idea of a national healthcare system that doesn't rely on the gummint to fix everything.

quadzilla

mhardy6647 wrote: »

The article's premise was that the drop-out "loophole" engendered by eliminating the pre-existing conditions clause gives lawmakers the ability to mandate insurance to prevent drop-outs. The same one-two punch, the author posits, could be applied in other circumstances to provide a streamlined path to government mandates.

But as I said in my post, I thought the one of the original complaints about the health care reform legislation was that it does, in fact, already require people to purchase health care. Having read much of the more factual analysis, it does, in fact, do so. So since one of the main points of the article is that people can drop out, yes, they can, but would pay a fine for doing so. So a more interesting and relevant question would be; does the health care reform make it cheaper to pay the fine and only buy insurance if you get sick, or is it more economically sane to just buy the insurance as required. Then that would serve as a jumping off point for an analysis of govt. intrusion into the conduct of personal affairs and financial decisions.

However, since one of the points was on the intrusion of govt. into things that don't necessarily affect others, I would say that this point is also incorrect, as part of the current problem is that those without health care tend to cause higher costs and taxes for others, since when they get really sick, they show up at publicly funded hospitals and don't pay the bills. This obviously means that the hospital must recover the cost somehow, and that somehow generally translates to higher health care costs for those who are insured and/or can afford to pay cash.

Again, and it's just my opinion, but I think the article is overly simplistic and misses important points in its analysis, thus echoing certain less-informed agendas currently receiving a lot of air time. But the general thrust, that this sets a bad precedent, is correct in a way, but again misses the fact that this has already been going on for a long time, and the reasons why.

steveinaz

dorourke07 wrote: »

Interesting, but the ending premise seems to be that I pay more taxes.....I thought that was the issue with Obamacare. That part woulld still be run by the government. We don't want to pay more taxes and I don't like insure companies making decisions. It seems more complicated than this.

The national sales tax would likely be offset (largely) by no longer paying into Medicare/Medicaide.

Gotta pay if you want to play. I'll bet a months pay your lower healthcare premiums would more than cover the tax as well. Competition breeds low pricing.

steveinaz

j allen wrote: »

The first article was interesting. The second one was absolutely fascinating. Is there going to a more in-depth breakdown of that idea in the book? I would probably pick it up just for that. I like the idea of a national healthcare system that doesn't rely on the gummint to fix everything.

J-
He goes into more detail on a radio talk show in STL, station KMOX. I can't seem to find the link to the video anymore. I don't know much about the book, as I haven't had a chance to quiz Dave on it.

The REAL beauty of his solution (IMO) is it gaurantees 100% of the population is covered by default, for catastrophic coverage---even the HOMELESS. He also explains that most people would opt for additional coverage, which due to the competition this solutuion creates, would be far cheaper.

The other BIGGIE, your healthcare will no longer be tied to your employer--which means if you lose your job, you are still fully covered.

punk-roc

My only concern with a national sales tax is my problem with all sales tax.. it is a regressive tax that disproportionately hurts the less wealthy.. and in down economies when people buy less the money disappears when we need it most... =(

Jason

steveinaz

Here's one interview about the stimulus, and Dave's thoughts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyVQLbX9HCk

Look along the right margin for more videos w/Dave.

steveinaz

Keep in mind, Dave is an economist; not a constitutional law student or a politician. He doesn't step into areas that are not his expertise---nor does he make predicitions (his personal policy).

He doesn't go into great detail in these short articles because he is hoping his audience is the less informed. Why preach to the choir?

He can certainly get "technical" (trust me on this) but good luck keeping up.