Tag Archives: Heartland Institute

Posted by Big Governement
June 7, 2010
Leave a Comment

Obamacare Isn’t Medicine for Deficit

Avik Roy, a savvy health care analyst in New York City who writes an excellent blog on health policy, took the time to talk with me for The Heartland Institute’s Health Care News podcast about what we learned last week when it comes to the White House’s fraudulent case for Obamacare. It’s well worth a listen.

In case you missed it — because for some reason, the Washington media types didn’t find time to cover this story — Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf offered an astounding rejection of the notion that the new health care regime, which President Obama frequently cited as a profound and necessary deficit-lowering measure, does anything to improve America’s deficit picture.

This is less news to you, of course. But it’s newsworthy because of who’s saying it. As Keith Hennessey put it, “Never before have I seen a CBO Director so bluntly refute the policy claims of a President and his Budget Director.”

Despite the best efforts of OMB chief Peter Orszag and others, the spin that Obamacare was a budgetary cure has already been revealed as a complete falsehood, even before the implementation costs of the vast majority of its policies are fully known. As Roy writes:

At this point, there are only two camps of honest people: those who believe Obamacare will blow up the budget, and that this is a problem; and those who believe that Obamacare will blow up the budget, and that this is not a problem (because wealth redistribution is more important, and because the wealthy can be taxed more if needed).

The more we learn about what is in this bill, the more we see how disastrous it will be for this country, and how wrongheaded its approach is to solving our health care problems.

Read more at Health Care News.

Posted by Big Governement
May 13, 2010
Leave a Comment

How Donald Berwick Will Run Your Health Care

President Obama’s nomination of Donald Berwick as the head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is a gathering far less attention than a certain other nominee — but it will be getting more attention in the weeks to come, given his particularly radical agenda when it comes to health policy — an agenda that includes support for massive government rationing and his support of using health care bureaucracy to redistribute wealth.

berwick_4_.JPG

Berwick is a leading Ivy League academic and technocrat – he’s graduated from Harvard not once, but three times – and is the founder of a Cambridge-based think-tank, the Institute for Health Care Improvement. Yet the job of running CMS is hardly the same as running a small think tank or talking in broad terms about the nature of health care – CMS is essentially the world’s second largest insurance company after the United Kingdom’s NHS, covering over 98 million people and overseeing roughly $800 billion annually in taxpayer-funded health care expenditures.

Berwick is a great fan of the NHS, and worked as a consultant on the project under Tony Blair. Berwick will have the opportunity to apply the ideas he gained through that experience with the power of the CMS position, which means that his nomination holds massive ramifications for Medicare and Medicaid recipients, hospitals and doctors and, under Obama’s law, all Americans.

Berwick: Health Care Must Redistribute Wealth

Key to understanding Berwick’s views on the NHS is a speech he gave as part of a presentation offered two years ago, in which he shared his thoughts on the NHS and health care generally. You can watch the full speech here. The full video shows several lines from Berwick that are notable. He decries private sector solutions to health care problems, dismissing the “invisible hand of the market” as an “unaccountable system.” He also states:

“I am romantic about the NHS; I love it. All I need to do to rediscover the romance is to look at health care in my own country.”

And more disturbingly, in this clip:

“Any health care funding plan that is just equitable civilized and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition redistributional.”

Read more »

Posted by Big Governement
May 3, 2010
Leave a Comment

Why Obamacare Doesn’t Work

My latest Health Care News podcast, brought to you by FreedomPub, is with Merrill Matthews, executive director of the Council for Affordable Health Insurance and a resident scholar at the Institute for Policy Innovation, about his latest column on the individual mandate. You can listen to it here or stream it below:

When I’m asked on the radio or in person about the biggest problem with President Obama’s health care reform, the answer I usually give isn’t that it’s a recipe for trillions in costs for the American people, that it creates massive new taxes on businesses and entrepeneurs, that it effectively divides us into two Americas, that it squelches innovative programs or that it’s possibly unconstitutional.

My answer is much simpler: it’s a model of health care which is proven not to work, because it assumes consumers will act irrationally.

We’ve seen the proof in Massachusetts. Here’s one report from the Boston Globe:

In 2009 alone, 936 people signed up for coverage with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts for three months or less and ran up claims of more than $1,000 per month while in the plan. Their medical spending while insured was more than four times the average for consumers who buy coverage on their own and retain it in a normal fashion, according to data the state’s largest private insurer provided the Globe…

Other insurers could not produce such detailed information for short-term customers but said they have witnessed a similar pattern. And, they said, the phenomenon is likely to be repeated on a grander scale when the new national health care law begins requiring most people to have insurance in 2014, unless federal regulators craft regulations to avoid the pitfall.

The point is, we should always assume consumers will behave rationally, in their own best interest. With the penalties for failing to purchase insurance so low, and with the IRS lacking the power and the ability to properly enforce the mandate, we should expect the exact same thing to happen across the country which happened in the Bay State: people will game the system, and costs will continue to rise. More on that here, here and here.

The entire point of an individual mandate was ensuring that younger, healthier people who don’t currently buy insurance (and make up a significant portion of the uninsured) and whose employers don’t provide it are forced to buy into the insurance market. But if insurers are required to cover you after you get sick, and the penalties are so much cheaper than the insurance costs month to month — a divide which will be even greater by 2014 — there’s no rational reason for these people to enter the market except for small chunks of time, when they will rack up high expenses, and then drop back off. Take the example of one private insurer who reported that from April 2008 to March 2009, a full 40 percent of the individual applicants were covered for less than five months, but ran up bills averaging $2,400 a month.

What’s the left’s response to this obvious policy failing? Well, essentially, they ask consumers to roll back human nature. Think not of yourself or your family, but of the collective!

Ezra and others have argued that doing so would take a cynical customer — someone who would disregard the impact of one’s individual actions on the well-being of others, as well as their own future insurance rates. But unfortunately, I do think that more than a few customers will be tempted to go down that path, since the penalties of not complying with the mandate will be so weak. As a result, supporters of health reform will need to be bolder about emphasizing the moral and civic imperative of buying insurance for those who can afford it — and how collective non-compliance could jack up everyone’s own premiums in the future, as Jonathan Cohn argues.

Maybe they’ve got something there. Harry Reid says the health care law is the “most important thing for the world” — maybe because he believes it will fundamentally change human nature, and make people behave like they do in bad utopian fiction, not how they do in real life?

Follow me on Twitter.

Posted by Big Governement
April 20, 2010
Leave a Comment

Henry Waxman and the New American Way

One of the dirty little secrets of Capitol Hill is that most politicians – even the ones the horserace-focused media depicts as irredeemably ideologically divided – actually have no coherent driving ideology. The secret is revealed only occasionally. If powerful oversight chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) hadn’t reconsidered his plans this week to call the CEOs of major companies into committee chambers for his version of Beltway blackmail, the American people might have had an opportunity to witness it being revealed.

Waxman originally called the hearing in a characteristic fit of pique. After more than nine months of labor, the House of Representatives had finally given birth to the gargantuan ogre of Obamacare. Yet before the Democratic leadership could finish tousling the hair of the prop children at their signing ceremonies, corporate America started following the law, in the most inconvenient manner possible: they reported to their investors and employees the effects the new legislation would have on their benefit plans.

In each case, the analysts employed by major companies like AT&T, Verizon Communications, Caterpillar, Deere & Co. and others did their job: they delivered reports detailing the ramifications – higher premiums, dropped drug coverage, and forcing their employees into taxpayer-funded plans – thanks to the new bill. Waxman, infuriated, demanded the CEOs of these troublesome companies turn over all internal communications about the predicted results, as if he thought they would reveal some devious Republican plot, instead of the simple mathematical calculations of the green eyeshades and the diligent efforts of company lawyers to ensure that the companies complied with federal disclosure laws.

The inconvenient truth for Waxman – something he would know if he weren’t a dogmatic partisan – is that he’s seeing a feature of Obamacare, not a bug. The ideological basis of the health reform package was never about lowering insurance premiums for the American people, increasing the quality of care, or decreasing the burden of health costs on corporate America. Quite the contrary; it was designed to advance a long-term agenda to cede massive authority to government, and to achieve a permanent social change in the path to prosperity.  And, yes, to use increased costs to limit the options open to large corporations.

The aims of socialism are often misunderstood by most Americans, as the only socialist most know of is that harmless disheveled professor on the local campus. It’s a word which can hardly be considered insulting when an elected Senator of the Socialist party caucuses with the Democrats. While socialism is sold as a way to elevate the underclass, the actual result of its application isn’t to increase the prosperity of the poor – it’s a method of achieving permanent stratification by allowing the more productive members of society to pass any losses onto others.

The reason socialism fails, as my colleague Francis Cianfrocca describes it, is that it socializes losses, not gains. It is an application of the “too big to fail” policy across all levels of society – because the losers no longer face consequences for their mistakes, businessmen are happy to make more of them, morphing into the oligarchs of the Soviet era. The rich stay rich, the poor stay poor, and the classless society becomes one where the boundaries of class are nigh impossible to break.

President Obama has drawn many comparisons to Jimmy Carter and Woodrow Wilson, but his agenda is, in its all-encompassing approach, far more ambitious. As Josh Trevino has pointed out, where liberal projects once consisted of focused attacks on either end of the economic continuum – punitive taxes on the wealthy, union enabling, the minimum wage, and Lyndon B. Johnson’s war on poverty – Obama’s agenda is designed to destroy the ability to transit from one end of the continuum to the other. Every new cushion, apparently designed to ease the pain of losses, means new barriers obstructing individual freedom of action and the expected rewards of risk-taking, resulting in an immovable class society.

What is unprecedented about this agenda is that it fundamentally alters the traditional pathways to prosperity in American life. Social mobility is a distinctive, near-unique feature of America throughout its history. But if you are going to achieve financial success in Obama’s America, you will do so by following the path of these CEOs: passing the costs of benefits onto the taxpayers, spreading the burden of your losses to others, and, ideally, selling something to the government – the customer who never stops buying.

This is our future, designed by the leftist philosophers who inform President Obama’s views, and shepherded into law by partisan politicians like Henry Waxman. Welcome to the new American way.

Posted by Big Governement
February 15, 2010
Leave a Comment

Why Obama is Wrong about Net Neutrality and His Scheme Must Be Defeated

As Capitol Confidential noted the other day, net neutrality is an issue that that is dear to the left, but has flown under the radar of most Americans. It’s a rather technical and arcane subject, but can be summed up rather simply: Net neutrality rules enforced by the Federal Communications Commission would allow government bureaucrats to micromanage the Internet — thus sucking out the lifeblood of the digital economy and threatening the dynamism and freedom we’ve come to take for granted online.

image001

Proponents of net neutrality claim that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) abuse their position as “gatekeepers” to the Web, and the public needs government to establish strict “rules of the road” to protect us from their scheming. Trouble is, the evidence of abusive practices by ISPs is anecdotal and thinner than an iPod mini. The digital economy is currently so dynamic and cutthroat that free-market forces work quickly to correct any undesirable hiccups that arise — all without any micro-managing of the tech industry by government.

Net neutrality advocates insist we need government to preserve an “open” and “free” Internet and claim the market has failed. But they cannot point to any market failures that make the Internet less open or free. In short, the Internet isn’t broken. And it doesn’t need a government fix. No matter. The left presses ahead, because the facts are irrelevant. The goal is to put government in charge of digital policy, taking away your freedom as a consumer to shape the Internet with your own choices.

This would stifle the enormous private investment and innovation that has created the modern Internet — in part, because industries would be relegated to playing “Mother May I?” with the FCC before releasing its latest innovation. And that’s the best-case scenario. The Reason Foundation’s Steve Titch argues that if government-enforced net neutrality rules were in place five years ago, the iPhone as we know it wouldn’t exist. But on a more basic level, only a committed leftist could believe that more government involvement in … well … anything results is more economic dynamism and gains in personal freedom.

As noted in the video below, produced by The Heartland Institute, government isn’t in the business of preserving freedom, but of exercising power to regulate industries and control people. And this is an important thing to keep in mind — especially since President Obama recently reiterated his commitment to have government enforce a net neutrality regime on your Internet.

The video takes apart Obama’s statements on the subject in his Feb. 1 YouTube interview, and attempts to take the broader view so what’s at stake can be better understood by non-techies.

Posted by Big Governement
February 5, 2010
Leave a Comment

An Honest IPCC Scientist Warns His Colleagues: Don’t Dismiss ‘ClimateGate’

The 13th Annual Energy & Environment Conference, held in Phoenix Feb. 1-3, isn’t the sort of place where global warming “deniers” are exactly welcome. In fact, by my observations, the skeptical caucus at the event consisted entirely of: James M. Taylor, a senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute; Keith Lockitch, a fellow of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights; and me. All the other attendees spent their time discussing how the U.S. government — or, even better, a “global government” — needs to compel us all to live “greener” lives through schemes like cap-and-trade. Environmentalists are a bossy and power-hungry lot.

global_warming_or_global_cooling1

Lockitch gave a presentation arguing free-market economies are better positioned than socialist societies to deal with any severe weather events caused by climate change — and was called a “denier” and compared to a shill for “Big Tobacco” for his trouble. Taylor got off a little easier, receiving only scoffs and curious-to-annoyed glances for asking inconvenient questions.

But that’s not to say we were the only people to question the assumptions of the attendees who believe the “science is settled” on global warming. Perhaps the greatest challenge came from one of their own — renowned climate scientist William Sprigg — who urged his colleagues to stop treating the ClimateGate scandal as irrelevant noise promoted by “deniers.” In an amazingly telling moment, green energy consultant Andy Van Horn, who introduced Sprigg, admitted he’d never heard of ClimateGate until Sprigg suggested it a few weeks ago as a topic worthy of discussion. (Who are the real “deniers” again?)

Sprigg, adjunct research professor in the Institute of Atmospheric Physics at the University of Arizona, believes the planet is on a potentially dangerous warming path and atmospheric carbon dioxide is to blame. He also led the technical review of the first global warming report issued by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1990. Clealry, Sprigg is no “outlier” or “rebel,” but one of the most respected and “mainstream” scientists in the field of climatology. So it came to a bit of shock to the audience when Sprigg expressed concerns about how contrarian scientists are treated with contempt by many of his colleagues.

It’s not right, he said, that the game is rigged to keep skeptics out of peer-reviewed journals. It violates the scientific method to refuse to release raw data so others can test your theories. And it’s a big mistake to keep defending the likes of infamous “Hide the Declineemailers Phil Jones and Michael Mann. The very credibility of the entire discipline of climate science is at stake, Sprigg said, and it’s time to stop ignoring this fact. As one might imagine, this all did not go over very well in the audience — who were undoubtedly expecting to hear a lecture ratifying their view that ClimateGate was no big deal when they saw Sprigg’s topic on the agenda.

I recorded Sprigg’s remarks on video for Heartland, and (from what I could tell) mine was the only camera in the room. The footage below features Taylor — who is also managing editor of Environment & Climate News — asking Sprigg what he thinks the future holds for the wholly corrupted IPCC. Sprigg nodded as Taylor referred to “mounting scandals” at the IPCC and then responded:

“There will be some reform. I think there are going to be big changes in the peer review process for the IPCC. There will be — there are — calls for the head of [IPCC Chairman Raj] Pachauri. Some of my colleagues have written letters saying that he needs to be taken off the job.”

In his 24-minute lecture, Sprigg also:

  • warned of a growing perception that “the IPCC is biased, conflicted, [and] pushing political agendas.”;
  • called for a new climate research agency supported not entirely by the government, but in conjunction with the private sector;
  • and declared: “We need to stick to our scientific principles,” and “improve our peer preview process, and expand the stakeholders’ role to keep us all honest.”

It was a remarkable presentation, one that The Heartland Institute has summarized with commentary in the video below. One gets the feeling Sprigg has put himself on the path to pariah status among the true-believers of global warming, But this honest scientist deserves praise from all sides of the debate for demanding politics, group-think and a desire to control our lives through government mandates not replace scientific rigor.

Posted by Big Governement
December 8, 2009
Leave a Comment

Health Care News Update: What’s Happening in the Senate?

As the Senate considers a health care bill that amounts to the largest entitlement expansion in American history, we sit down today with health care and budget policy expert James Capretta to discuss the prospects in the Senate and the wide-ranging economic ramifications of the current legislation. It’s a special edition of Coffee and Markets, a daily podcast from The New Ledger on politics, policy and the marketplace, brought to you by BigGovernment.com and by The Heartland Institute’s Health Care News.

Coffee and Markets

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

You can subscribe to the podcast by following the links above, and if you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

James Capretta’s Blog: Diagnosis
First Things: The Health Care Bill in the Senate
AEI: Opportunities Missed on Health Care
Abortion Vote Could Decide Fate of Health Care Bill
For more on this topic, see Health Care News, a publication of The Heartland Institute.