When “W” is spelled “Hillary”

I’ve written about screwy incentives distorting health insurance before, but it’s apparently going to be in the news a lot in the next week as President Bush prepares to address the topic in his State of the Union address. As with most of his proposals over the last few years, I’m less than optimistic that he has the leadership fortitude to get real reform passed. At this point, I barely expect any reform to pass, even if it appeals to the misguided warm and fuzzy crowd. If this story is accurate, the president might test my least optimistic suspicion:

President Bush is weighing proposals for new tax breaks for health care costs, which will be a major topic of next week’s State of the Union address, a top economic adviser to the president said Tuesday.

“People are very, very frustrated about the cost of health care,” said Allan Hubbard, director of the National Economic Council.

Hubbard told reporters at USA TODAY and Gannett News Service that the tax code offers advantages when a company buys health coverage for its employees but doesn’t do the same for employees who have to buy coverage on their own.

Somehow I’m not surprised that the solution will be new tax breaks instead of fixing the underlying problem built into the tax code. One idea is to start taxing employer-provided health benefits, but President Bush and his economic team rejected that idea. But will the administration come up with a structural solution?

“The president’s very concerned about the unfairness of the tax code,” Hubbard said.
…

“Tax reform is not off the table,” Hubbard said. “At the same time, it doesn’t have the priority that health care does right now.”

The implied answer is clear: where it should be about tax reform, the answer is always targeted breaks. Apparently, President Bush has the courage to ease the symptoms. While it’s certainly possible that new tax breaks could alleviate the health care “crisis”, something new will appear in its place until the tax code is fixed. Remove the government from the pushing its “this is good for you” influence and let the free market decide.

Prior posts.

Repeat after me: activist legislature

Do you think Maryland Del. Donald H. Dwyer Jr. (R-Anne Arundel) asked this with a sincere concern for the children showing on his face?

Dwyer also sought a legal opinion on the procedure he would need to impeach Circuit Court Judge M. Brooke Murdock [ed. note: for her ruling that same-sex marriage restrictions violate the Maryland Constitution]. The attorney general’s office advised that the process is available only “for high crimes and misdemeanors.”

These are the kinds of people voters elect to lead them. Somehow, I’m not swayed away from my appreciation that we’re a republic and not a democracy. At least it impedes the bigots, even if only a tiny bit.

I was much angrier last night

Last night I tried to put a few songs onto my iPod. Unlike every other experience, last night’s attempt became a debacle. iTunes refused to transfer any songs until I’d installed the latest firmware update to my iPod. I downloaded the update (iPod Updater 2006-01-10) and installed it as recommended. Unlike the intended effect, Apple’s update hosed my iPod’s hard drive. Outstanding. Now, not only do I still have to transfer those few songs I’d intended to transfer last night, I have to transfer every song that was already on it since I had to reformat the hard drive to make my iPod work again.

Today’s lesson: Do not install iPod Updater 2006-01-10. It will corrupt your iPod’s hard drive.

Maryland flirts with sanity

Although I’ve expressed my dismay at the ridiculous push in Virginia for a state constitutional amendment to outline marriage as only one man and one woman, I’m not worried about the long-term consequences. Such witch hunts for those “responsible” for society’s ills don’t last forever. It’s possible (probable) that the target only changes, but I’m trying to be optimistic. So it’s with that attitude that I read about a Maryland judge overturning that states law against same-sex marriage:

The ruling by Judge M. Brooke Murdock rejected a state argument that the government had a legitimate interest in protecting the traditional family unit of heterosexual parents.

“Although tradition and societal values are important, they cannot be given so much weight that they alone will justify a discriminatory” law, she wrote.

The judge immediately stayed her order to give the state time to file an expected appeal in Maryland’s highest court, the Court of Appeals.

I haven’t read the rest of the ruling so I can only go on that summary. If that’s the most accurate summary, my response is amusement that anyone can’t understand that. How committed to government as moral weapon does one have to be?

What I find most telling is that the judged immediately stayed her order. The cries of “judicial activism” have no doubt begun, but I don’t see how a judge intentionally slowing the case down, allowing the possibility that the ruling will never be implemented, can be anything other than our legal system carrying out its proper function. I’m not too innocent to know how much of a change same-sex marriage is for some people, but that doesn’t mean it should stop because a few are afraid. We do have principles and they’re working fine, despite the political lies to the contrary.

Lie number one:

Along with the argument for preserving the traditional family unit, lawyers for the state had said the issue was a question for the Legislature rather than the courts.

Of course. And when the Legislature passes a bill legalizing same-sex marriage, as California did, the politicians then claim that the people themselves should decide, because we’re a republic democracy. Or they complain in uniquely patronizing ways:

Senate President Thomas Mike Miller, a Democrat, said he believes the ruling will be overturned.

“In my opinion, the plaintiffs forum-shopped,” Miller said. “I don’t think the same opinion would have been rendered in 90% of the other circuits in the state of Maryland.”

Allow me to highlight Maryland’s legislative veto override last week, which enacted a bill forcing Wal-Mart into health care expenditures not required of any other employer in the state of Maryland. That would be the law encouraged by competing grocery store chains in Maryland because they couldn’t compete with Wal-Mart’s cost structure. Instead of competing in the marketplace, Giant did what any good corporate citizen does when there are politicians willing to impose any feel good law, regardless of the reasons or implications. That seems like a pretty clear case of “forum-shopping” to me. No doubt Sen. Miller is familiar with this example, since he joined 29 Senators in voting to override the governor’s veto.

Lie number two:

“The evidence is now on the table. We must pass a constitutional amendment,” said Del. Donald H. Dwyer Jr. (R-Anne Arundel). “This issue is not for the courts to decide.”

I thought interpreting the state constitution is what the court was designed to do. But allow me to pose a question, instead. If the court shouldn’t decide this issue, how will it have any authority to enforce a constitutional amendment which merely addresses a different angle of this issue? But I’m probably wrong in my assumption. Del. Dwyer will certainly request a constitutional amendment indicating that the court does not have jurisdiction over same-sex marriage and not a blunt amendment designed only to counteract what the court decided. Sometimes, I’m just so happy that there are politicians more capable of understanding what we need than we can decide for ourselves.

You are officially never invited to our game again.

Everyone knows by now that poker is exceptionally popular in America now. With an abundance of poker on television and easy availability of poker supplies such as clay chips, anyone can enjoy the game. Few laws seem to object to home games, but most still prohibit organized poker, whether it’s for profit or charity. No matter that it’s a “crime” between consenting players, it’s a vice and is restricted for our own good. Worse, with the growing popularity has come a crackdown.

Some areas are letting a little sense into their laws, but it’s too slow and for dubious reasons. Consider:

New York state Sen. John Sabini is pushing to allow bars or restaurants to host poker tournaments offering prizes such as Yankees tickets or a trip to Las Vegas.

Because players spend money on food and drinks, businesses would earn more, and “that would trickle down to the state,” Sabini says.

Sen. Sabini could, of course, focus on the concept that poker houses or casinos could generate profits themselves, which would then be taxable, rather than waiting for it to result in greater beer sales. The taxability should be an outcome and not the reason for decriminalization, but some victories aren’t quite so complete.

Alas, with the rise in nanny laws protecting people from themselves, the victory may also by Pyrrhic:

If gambling laws are relaxed, society should help those whose playing gets out of control, says Keith Whyte, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based National Council on Problem Gambling.

It’s not society’s responsibility to help. Private members of society are free to help all they want, but government society as I think is implied here should not. I shouldn’t be compelled to use my money and/or time, whether through new gambling taxes or personal ID checks, to prevent someone from being stupid. I know how to control my gambling. Don’t punish me because someone else can’t do the same.

Virginia is for lovers irresponsible government

Virginia is supposed to be a bastion of limited government. We like gun rights, fiscal responsibility, freedom from government intrusion and all the other classic hallmarks. Unfortunately, the way we paint ourselves and the way we behave reveal a disingenuous streak. Whether it’s trying to impose pass a majoritarian ban on individual marriage rights or a bigoted dictate that only married women may conceive through medical intervention, we’re more interested in a limited social environment than we are a limited legal environment.

When I was a kid, a study came out indicating that the Richmond business community was twenty years behind the times … and proud of it. That sums up the state more than any rhetoric we may offer. So it’s unsurprising that this is the proposed solution for Virginia’s transportation problems:

Some Republican leaders in the Virginia Senate will propose as early as Friday a series of tax and fee increases that could grow to about $1 billion a year for road and transit projects, once again setting the stage for a bitter clash over taxes with the House of Delegates.

Based on tax increases pushed through in the last budget by former Gov. Mark Warner (Democrat) and the General Assembly (Republican), Virginia now has a surplus of more than $1 billion. There’s a lesson there and I don’t like it.

An endorsement for poor leadership and government intrusion?

Skimming the news this morning, I came across this editorial. It’s about health care reform and an apparent coming push from President Bush in his State of the Union address. There are several angles to this, all of which the writer approaches. The whole piece is so discombobulated that I can only offer a few bits and try to make a little sense out of them, which is something I think the writer forgot. Consider this opening paragraph:

This time last year, President Bush was preaching Social Security reform; that got nowhere. This time six months ago, his team was thinking tax reform; it soon got cold feet. Now the new theme is health reform. “This is a big priority for the president,” Al Hubbard, the White House national economic adviser, told me Friday. “The system has got to be reformed.”

If that’s the path President Bush is going to pursue, there’s a lesson in how leaders (leadership in character, not title) behave. Flip-flopping around to every new issue, hoping to make a mark, only to abandon it when it becomes apparent that it might be challenging is not the mark of a good leader. A leader sets his course and then moves in the direction of its achievement. That clearly can’t be said of Social Security and tax reform, so I fail to see how health care will be different. But let’s continue:

Some look at the U.S. health mess and see a failure of the market, but the authors [R. Glenn Hubbard of Columbia University and John F. Cogan and Daniel P. Kessler of the Hoover Institution] insist that government clumsiness prevents the market from working. Modest tort reform would free doctors from practicing expensive defensive medicine. Tougher antitrust policies would prevent price-raising alliances among hospitals. Pruning mandates on health insurers — which often reflect lobbying by doctors’ groups — might free insurers to cover only the most cost-effective procedures.
…

Enter the authors’ really big idea — the one on which the White House is likely to build a story about its grand health-reform vision. To make the health market work, the trick is to create and then empower consumers. You create them by making individuals pay more out of pocket. And you empower them by forcing hospitals and doctors to publish information on quality and price.

As I read this I thought this plan might be a start. My experience backs up much of what they’re saying in some form. Essentially, I read this as a way to make the free market work. Wherever an obstacle exists, figure out a way to remove it. Mostly, I see the government’s role as removing governmental obstacles to free market success. Beyond that, a solution that involves individuals in making choices relavent to them is the most logical. One specific example I’ve offered in the past is breaking the paternalistic link between employer and health care. Mr. Hubbard seems to propose that with an imaginary scenario.

The idea appeals to Al Hubbard, a bluff, no-nonsense business type with a genial, uncomplicated style. Hubbard invited me to imagine a world in which companies paid for their staffs’ groceries: Employees would load up with more food than they needed; supermarkets would seize the chance to mark up groceries; pretty soon, they wouldn’t even bother posting their prices. So it is today with medicine. You don’t know the cost of your hospital visit until a few days later, when the bill arrives.

Too extreme an example? Possibly. Too far-fetched? I don’t think so. The writer goes on to explain a supposed weakness in this. I’m simplifying, but he posits that the system is too complex, whether for consumer intelligence or consumer knowledge for decision-making. Throw in a dose of “people won’t take care of themselves” if they have to pay for it, and the proposed outcome starts to take shape. The market works, but only if people are smart, which leads to this conclusion:

Beyond the imperative of restraining prices, the biggest challenges in health care are to get insurance to everyone and to create incentives for preventive treatment — even though prevention may pay off 30 years later, by which time the patient will have gone through multiple switches in health plans. The most plausible subsidizer of universal insurance is government, and the only entity with a stake in lifelong wellness is the government. Is the administration ready to see that?

Somehow we’ve gotten to a situation where waste, inefficiency, and bureaucratic largess resulted in a health care crisis in need of urgent reform. The logical conclusion is to hand that over to the government to eliminate those problems? Are we talking about the same government? The United States government? I would not have come to that conclusion, although I fear the Bush administration will. (See: prescription drug benefit) Right, great idea.

I didn’t know I’m a gay loving liberal professor

In my circumcision posts, I’ve certainly been angry at times. However, I’ve always told the truth. I deal in facts because I’m willing to think and am capable of making up my own mind. I trust others to do the same, but some people aren’t quite so willing. I read this editorial the other day, arguing against circumcision with valid support. When I saw that the site allowed feedback posts, I knew it would get interesting. I replied to a few posts that contained either inaccuracies or lazy thinking, but one message deserves no response, because arguing logic and reason would be useless. Consider the wonderful comment left by Lee from Omaha:

Freaking Liberals can’t stay out of the bedroom. Where do they get off saying this time tested procedure isn’t necessary. Of course it has health benefits and makes men more attractive, but NO, they have to think alnatural. The gay loving liberal professors ought to just let folks be and not worry about natural things. If they need to do something, have them figure out why Homosexuals can’t be converted to Heterosexuals. With all the problems in the world, like being homosexual, why do liberals think they need to stick their God hating noses into our bedrooms?

I wonder if godhatingnaturalgaylovingliberalprofessor.com is still available. That would be even more descriptive for me than if I used my own name. Even people who don’t know me would know how to find me immediately.

Sometimes, people scare me.

People everywhere refuse to learn from history

This isn’t going to end well.

Bolivia’s president-elect said his government plans to seize oil and gas reserves owned by international companies, leaving other assets such as pipelines and refineries in the hands of foreign operators.

“The state will exercise its right of ownership, and that means it will decide on the use of those resources,” Evo Morales told reporters yesterday in Pretoria, South Africa, where he is visiting the country’s President Thabo Mbeki. Oil companies “will be partners, not owners,” he said.

The comments clarify plans Morales has discussed since his election Dec. 18 to “nationalize” Bolivia’s oil and gas reserves and boost government revenue on output. All reserves are now in the hands of foreign companies such as Spain’s Repsol YPF SA, which owns 35 percent of the country’s 55 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and Brazil’s Petroleos Brasileiros SA (Petrobras), which holds 17.5 percent. Bolivia has Latin America’s second-largest gas reserves.

Morales said he will cancel any contract that gives foreign companies ownership rights to oil and gas. His plans do not call for confiscation of multinationals’ technology or other assets, he said.
…

Bolivia attracted $3 billion of investment for its oil and gas industry since privatizing the state energy company in 1996, helping increase its natural gas reserves sevenfold, according to the Bolivian Hydrocarbon Chamber. Investment in the oil and gas industry dropped to $135 million in 2005 from $236 million in 2004. In 2002, the year Morales lost a presidential runoff against Sanchez de Lozada, investment reached $345 million.

Will socialists ever realize that state-run monopolies aren’t the most efficient method of distribution? Destroy contract and property rights and incentive disappears. The dream is always that everyone will suddenly prosper and receive a “fair” share of the nation’s wealth, but all it does is divide a now-finite amount of wealth. Factor in that most of that wealth transfers to the few in power, the dream doesn’t seem so brilliant.

State legislators have too much free time

Two pieces of legislation passing through the Virginia General Assembly are worth mentioning. First, this fine Commonwealth is well on its way to a voter referendum on same-sex marriage in November. This is just further proof that today’s conservative government movement is about nothing more than wielding State power to achieve social objectives. Here’s the text:

Constitutional amendment (voter referendum); marriage. Provides for a referendum at the November 2006 election on approval of a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage. The proposed amendment provides that “only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions.” The proposed amendment also prohibits the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions from creating or recognizing “a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage.” Further, the proposed amendment prohibits the Commonwealth or its political subdivisions from creating or recognizing “another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.”

Next, this bill is interesting not because of its subject, but because of how it defines what its terms to achieve its objective. Consider:

Action for wrongful death; pre-born child. Creates a cause of action for the wrongful death of a pre-born child.

The merits of the bill are entirely separate, but I thought we still referred to “pre-born” as “fetus”.