Notes
posted 11 / 9 / 2009
[If] women are being charged more for health insurance premiums, it isn’t because they are women. It’s because the fact of being a woman carries with it different health risks than the fact of being a man. This isn’t sexism afoot … it’s a matter of statistics.— Jeff Miller
When I go to the barber, the sign on the way says that a man’s haircut is $17, while a woman’s is $25. Again, this isn’t because the barbers hate women (indeed, many of them are women). It’s because the average woman’s hairstyle requires more work than the average man’s.
When we talk about protected classes, we talk in terms of basic equality of treatment … like “equal pay for equal work.” We don’t talk about equal pay for unequal work. This is a huge point. A barber can charge women more because it’s more costly to service a woman; similarly, an insurer can charge women more where it’s more costly to insure a woman. Our commitment to equality does not require that we provide services to certain classes as some kind of loss leader.
“Here’s a letter that I sent on Friday to the New York Times:
Writing about health-care, Paul Krugman asserts that “conservatives … don’t want Americans to have universal coverage” (”The Defining Moment,” Oct. 30).
Among the earliest lessons that I teach my freshman economics students are (1) intentions are not results, and (2) to oppose a government program is not necessarily to object to the intentions stated by that program’s advocates.
Paul Krugman obviously teaches his students differently, for he clearly believes that (1) if government intends for Americans to have universal health coverage, then the result will be that Americans actually get universal health coverage, and (2) anyone who opposes a government program promising universal health coverage is a person who objects to Americans actually getting universal health coverage.
Mr. Krugman’s reasoning is evidence that he’s forgotten some of the most foundational lessons of economics. Pity his students.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux”succinctly & accurately said.
[h/t devin]
—If we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical drugs now, how can we afford to pay for doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical drugs, in addition to a new federal bureaucracy to administer a government-run medical system?
Nothing is easier for politicians than to rail against the profits of pharmaceutical companies, the pay of doctors and other things that have very little to do with the total cost of medical care, but which can arouse emotions to the point where facts don’t matter. As former Congressman Dick Armey put it, “Demagoguery beats data” in politics.
Economics and politics confront the same fundamental problem: What everyone wants adds up to more than there is. Market economies deal with this problem by confronting individuals with the costs of producing what they want, and letting those individuals make their own trade-offs when presented with prices that convey those costs. That leads to self-rationing, in the light of each individual’s own circumstances and preferences.
Politics deals with the same problem by making promises that cannot be kept, or which can be kept only by creating other problems that cannot be acknowledged when the promises are made.
Thomas Sowell : The “Costs” of Medical Care: Part III - Townhall.com
[via carpe diem h/t devin]
(via hilker)
The ability to “like” or reblog a post from the main URL without having to be on the post permalink.
(via bellatoris)
The concluding paragraph:
I’m not wishing the Internet away. It has become so integral to my work — to my life — that I honestly can’t recall what I did without it. But it has allowed us to reflexively indulge every passing interest, to expect answers to every fleeting question, to believe that if we search long enough, surf a little further, we can hit the dry land of knowing “everything that happens” and that such knowledge is both possible and desirable. In the end, though, there is just more sea, and as alluring as we can find the perpetual pursuit of little thoughts, the net result may only be to prevent us from forming the big ones.
Yes, yes, three times yes. That, among other reasons, is why I’ve been gone for a while.
Now, jail isn’t a certainty; depending on the infraction, fines are also an option. And, looked at another way, all this really means is that the government continues to retain the authority to lock up those who don’t pay their taxes. But still, this is a stark reminder that when liberals talk about “health care as a right,” what they really mean is “health insurance as a requirement.—
No Health Insurance? Go Directly to Jail. - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine
It’s the last sentence that is astonishingly right. This debate began as a discussion of health care as a right. But the legislation winding its way through the system isn’t about that—it’s about health care as a requirement. As a mandate. As an obligation. It’s not a right to health insurance; it’s the loss of the right not to buy insurance from insurance companies.
I hate the idea of government-provided health care, but in many ways that seems preferable to the product we’re getting. Once again, the Democrats sold out their principles and managed to find something worse than what they originally promised.
(via jeffmiller)
(via bellatoris)
An entry in a contest to design a “Where the Wild Things Are” fort. The hi-res is worth checking out. (via theendlessroadtrip)
