Taxation without Universal Benefits

Spectator has an interesting article out. You should read it. It claims that 42% of Americans are on government funded health care. I'm willing to believe that. it is 5% than one of my own attempts, but they included other programs that I didn't.

The interesting part is the author's claim that services like health care ought to be provided as a universal benefit. Otherwise the minority of Americans who are taxpayers end up getting taxed for nothing, essentially being robbed. I think that's a decent point, but I don't quite agree with the solution.

If we do go down the path of making health care a universal benefit, we'll end up, I feel, with an NHS of our own, which hasn't been a success. NHS in America would likely be an even quicker failure than in Britain. The NHS right now is hemorrhaging cash on compliance and data collection surrounding the internal market, which basically let contractors enter the system.

I can't imagine such a health care system being created in the US without such a market component in the first place. So any American NHS would be saddled with compliance and data collection to monitor contractors and determine contracts from the very beginning.

Food for thought. Introducing free markets to government programs isn't alway a good idea. 

MinnesotaCare Expansion Announced: One Step Closer to Single payer

Governor Dayton and the Democrats (you say DFL, I say Democrats) have announced plans to expand MinnesotaCare, a state program providing health care to individuals making less than 200% of the federal poverty level. The expansion would allow individuals with higher incomes to opt into the system, which will be a state run health plan.

The Democrats claim this will reduce costs. It isn't clear that will be the case. Whatever the merits, this expansion might really happen. Despite it being a terrible idea, I take comfort knowing, the states are the laboratories of democracy. Hopefully, we'll all take note of Minnesota's inevitable failure. But I doubt we will. Indeed, its inevitable failure might be considered a feature, not a bug.

 According to Gerald Kominski, Director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, the public option only makes sense in states where there are only a few providers in the ACA marketplace. So how big is Minnesota's ACA marketplace, MNsure?

4.

Minnesota started out with 5. But insurers, realizing that savings weren't to be found, have left the markets. This is a nationwide phenomena. Only 5% of counties have more than 5 or more  plans available. The same thing happened to ACOs in Medicare Reform. We started out with 32. Now there are only 8.

This is deliberate. Democrats want the insurance markets to fail so they can introduce a public option. Remember, Obamacare was designed to fail. MinnesotaCare is designed to fail. When it does, Democrats will demand we do something to fix it. Don't be fooled.

Thanks for read.

Law of Unintended Consequences: Will Democrats Steal California from themselves?

In California, the two candidates with the greatest vote totals in the primaries move on to the general election, regardless of party. In the past this has resulted in keeping Republicans out of the general election. But things could change. 

According to Nate Silver's crew, so many Democrats are running in the primary that they could split their vote. They could split their vote so badly that two Republicans end up with the greatest vote totals and moving on to the general.

One can hope. And I'm sure there are ways we can give the Democrats a helping hand. To any Russian troll reading, please provide all available assistance. California, after all, is a common enemy.  

Something similar will happen to the Democrats in 2020. Trump is more than just the Teflon candidate. He's got active armor. People constantly under-estimate him and pay the price. The Democratic primaries are going to be packed. Every Democrat thinks they can defeat Trump. And they will fight each other to the death for the honor, fatally dividing their party in the process.

One can hope.     

 

Trash or Treasure: What's The Matter With Kansas

Given the amount of information out there, it's essential that you filter. In Trash or Treasure, I will review books based on the first few pages. Today, I'm reviewing What's The Matter With Kansas--a book I picked up for free a couple of years ago but never bothered reading.

Let's start. The first page is full of howlers. For example:

• The poorest country in America isn't in Appalachia or the Deep South. It is on the Great Plains, a region of struggling rancher and dying farm towns [...] and George W. Bush carried it by a majority of greater than 80%.

Perhaps that was the case when Mr. Frank first wrote his book, but it isn't the case any longer. That dubious honor, according to USA Today, goes to McCreary County, Kentucky. 42.5% of the county lives in poverty and the median household income is $18,972. In contrast, the poorest country in Kansas is Crawford County with a median household income of $37,607. 21.8% of it's residents live in poverty.

More importantly, Mr. Frank contends that Kansas is doing itself a economic disservice by supporting Republicans. Data from the St. Louis Federal Reserve's website sheds some light on this claim. Let's start by examining Real Median Household Income.

Year............Household Income.............Governor.............State House
1985................$48,492...............................D...........................R
1990................$53,303...............................R........................Split
1995................$47,484...........................D to R.......................R
2000................$57,426...............................R...........................R
2005................$51,951...............................D...........................R
2010................$50,698...............................D...........................R
2015................$55,558...............................R...........................R
2016................$56,810...............................R...........................R

Yes, the economy his been rocky, but real income has risen over the last twenty years. In 1984 real income was at $54,208. So it has admittedly been only modest growth. But I think the data speaks for itself. Real GDP figures, however, present a rosier picture.

Year.................Real GDP (in Million $)
1997............................98,817
2002..........................109,000
2007..........................126,143
2012..........................131,320
2016..........................136,591

In short, Kansas has hardly become some wasteland under the Republicans.

• For us it is the Democrats that are the party of workers, of the poor, of the weak and the victimized. Understanding this, we think, is basic; it is part of the ABCs of adulthood.

That last sentence drips with condescension. The writer is saying, if you don't get this, you're a child and should be treated accordingly. Show us you're not a child by engaging in identity politics. How grown up of him! 

• How can anyone who has ever worked for someone else vote Republican? 

This is quite revealing. In a chapter entitled Employment and Independence, Hayek says our society has changed. In the past, most people were self-employed. Today, the majority of people are wage-earners. The self-employed person thinks of money as a resource. The wage-earner thinks of money almost entirely in terms of consumption and status.

• People getting their fundamental interests wrong is what American political life is all about.

People may get their interests confused, but why should a man's economic interests trump all other? People have every right to decide what really matters to them. Mr. Frank's whole attitude reminds me of the low opinions the Fabian's had of the masses. This is a quote from Beatrice Webb's diary:

• At present we leave this vital problem of character of consumption to be solved by the appetites of each individual, even to the extent of permitting them to poison themselves and their children. It will not be so very long before a whole system of sumptuary laws--at any rate as regards non-adults, will come into force. That was a brilliant suggestion of H. G. Wells that we should divide the world into adults and non-adults. For some purposes we would raise "the age of consent" to say, fifty!

Verdict: Trash