Reason Magazine Takes “Clearer Look” at Health Care Reform

"We have this insane system now where you need health care, you’re the buyer, I’m the doctor, I’m the seller of health care — and somebody else pays the bill. Who the heck is gonna shop for price when somebody else is paying the bill? … I think Lasik (eye surgery) can act as a model for health care reform." – Dr. Robert Maloney

In the video at the bottom of this post, Reason Magazine also makes an interesting case about how, traditionally, the length of time the average worker has had to work to afford certain things in America, from food to jeans to electricity, has dramatically decreased based on competition-induced price drops. They contend, like many, that applying these free market principles to health care would have the same impact.

In contrast, I’ve also heard detractors claim the free market can’t truly work in health care because the seller is the agent for the buyer (meaning the doctor has incentives to peddle certain products to patients for his/her benefit, not necessarily theirs).

At any rate, here’s the video. Where do YOU fall in this debate?

John Stossel, Freedom Enthusiast

If I were you, I’d go ahead and book my tickets now for the Economic Club of Indiana luncheon on October 6 at the Indianapolis Convention Center. The lunch will feature the musings of libertarian journalist/malcontent and winner of 19 Emmys John Stossel of ABC’s "20/20." Stossel, known these days as a champion of free markets (and owner of my second favorite TV mustache, next to that of PGA analyst Gary McCord), actually got his start as a consumer reporter.

Love him or hate him, he’ll probably make you think.

Here’s an excerpt from his blog today as he discusses ABC pulling his piece on health care reform in favor of more Michael Jackson coverage:

Here’s one blog comment, after I reported that ABC will hold my health care report in favor of more Michael Jackson coverage:

"Free market in action. See there Stossel? What’s not to like about that?
Posted by: jan | Jun 26, 2009 5:12:12 PM

p.s. Stossel. You’ve been hoisted on your own petard. Cheerio."

Jan is right. It’s the free market in action. 

Of course, maybe my bosses made the wrong choice.  Maybe more viewers would have tuned in for my health care report.  But the beauty of the market is that if they regularly choose wrong, they will go bankrupt. Networks better at giving the public what we want will take their business.   I’d rather have viewers vote with their remotes than have elites govern our choices, making sure we watch “serious” programming. 

Yes, I am sick of the coverage of Michael Jackson.  I hate it that ABC didn’t run my piece. Free markets sometimes encourage pandering to the masses. I still say, bless the market. The good outweighs the bad.

Free speech means rude obscenity and hate speech.  I treasure free speech too.

Out of the ‘Slums’: Economic Lessons from an Oscar Winner

Did you watch the Oscars last night? Well, if you haven’t heard, the awards confirmed the fact that "Slumdog Millionaire" is not a bad picture. (It also confirmed that "Wolverine" is surprisingly deft at singing show tunes. Take that, Magneto.)

But according to Reason magazine’s blog, "Slumdog" is much more than an interesting tale of gameshow prowess. It also serves as an illumination on the plight of India, begging discussion about the progress the country has made by freeing up its markets and ultimately its people, and the steps it still needs to take to help its poor rise above poverty:

For decades would-be entrepreneurs staggered under the weight of corruption and bureaucracy. Want to import a computer for your business? You’d have to get permission from a bureaucrat. Want to sell food from a small cart? You’d need all kinds of licenses. 

But in the 1990s, India emerged as a high-tech powerhouse. What changed?

"In the 1990s India started liberalizing its economy," says (Shikha Dalmia, Reason Foundation senior analyst), "and it did three things: cut taxes, liberalized trade, and deregulated business." Although they failed to cut the kind of red tape that entangled Slumdog‘s orphans, the reforms did make it easier for more Indians to start businesses and hire employees.

"One IT company doesn’t just employ computer professionals," says Dalmia. "It also needs landscaping services, cleaning services, and restaurants. There was this tremendous spillover effect that allowed people to lift themselves out of poverty."

Since the early 1990s, India has cut its poverty rate in half. About 300 million Indians—equivalent to the population of the entire United States—escaped the hunger and deprivation of extreme poverty thanks to pro-market reforms that increased economic activity.

Yet here in America we’re turning away from market reform. Says Dalmia, "It’s just this great conundrum that at the same time that deregulation and markets have produced such dramatic results in India, they are falling into suspicion in America." Dalmia’s prescription for India is at odds with what politicians have chosen to "stimulate" the United States. "What India needs to do is continue apace with its liberalization effort, but expand it to include the poor. Release them from the shackles of government corruption and government bureaucracy."

House of Cards: Chicago Tribune Criticizes Employee Free Choice Act

The Chicago Tribune editorial page recently took a swipe at the proposed Employee Free Choice Act card-check bill, concluding, "the inaptly named Employee Free Choice Act would be good for labor bosses. But it wouldn’t be good for laborers."

The Trib writes:

The Employee Free Choice Act would allow unions to create local bargaining units without winning the vote of a majority of workers in a secret ballot.

The local unit would be certified if a majority of workers endorsed it by signing an authorization card handed out by union organizers.

Fair enough? Not really. The so-called card-check bill would not protect workers and it would not be "free choice." It would strip away their right to vote in secret, making it more likely they would face intimidation from organizers and other workers. The pressure would be on to check the card, whether or not they actually wanted a union.

Once the union was certified by a card check, the employer would have to accept arbitration if a contract couldn’t be negotiated within 120 days.

It’s clear why union bosses want this law. Union membership ticked up last year, but it has been plunging for half a century. In the 1950s, about one-third of U.S. workers belonged to a union. Now just 12.1 percent of U.S. workers—and just 7.5 percent of private-sector workers—are in a union.

There are many reasons for that decline, including the growth of the service sector economy, the movement of manufacturing jobs overseas—and the choice of workers who believe that a union would require them to pay dues but wouldn’t benefit them.

We’ve written about this before, noting that even George McGovern thinks this is a bad idea.