Saturday, February 15, 2003
HEALTHCARE
I read with interest the Des Moines Register editorial page’s two pieces Friday on health care in the United States. There is a lot to chew on, and for now I’ll take on just one aspect. Primarily, it’s the attitude in these pieces that Americans would favor a universal (read “government-run”) healthcare system.
This piece by Andie Dominick states:
What's the deal?
The deal is that the United States is a victim of its own arrogance, as we refuse to consider alternative health care models in place in other countries.
The other column cites these poll numbers.
A 1998 survey of Americans revealed 59 percent thought the health-care system needed major changes. In 2000, Americans ranked health care third as "the most important problem facing this country today." They cared more about health care than crime, the economy, foreign affairs or illegal drugs.
Presumably these poll numbers are supposed to prove that Americans want major, fundamental healthcare reform. But Americans have a strong skepticism of government-run programs. That does a lot to explain why we don’t have a government healthcare system.
Also, it isn’t true that Americans are arrogant and unwilling to consider an alternative system. In fact, the state of Oregon considered such a system last November. The voters rejected it by a near 3-1 margin.
Perhaps it has less to do with arrogance and more to do with good judgement.
. . .
Friday, February 14, 2003
NO BLOGGING TODAY
I will post some tomorrow to make up for it.
. . .
Thursday, February 13, 2003
THOSE BRAVE POETS!
Watch out you warmongers! The poets are speaking out. According to an article in the Daily Iowan,
Iowans joined poets around the world fighting back in verse Wednesday after the Pentagon activated nearly 40,000 troops and foreign support waned for a possible war with Iraq.
More than 200 protesters lined the walls of the IMU Richey Ballroom to hear 14 poets, including Iowa's first poet laureate, Marvin Bell, denounce war and express disgust about the Bush administration.
Can anyone doubt that the U.S. would be swirling the bowl if it were not for these brave dissenters? Here’s a particularly insightful quote:
"I think when the democracy of which you are a part is seemingly headed toward committing unspeakable atrocities because of greed and arrogance, that is when someone has to stand up and say, 'Have you no shame?' " said UI Writers' Workshop Professor Jim Galvin, who also read.
“Greed and arrogance”? Every time I read something like that I have to wonder if these people even know that the U.S. was the victim of a terrorist atrocity. If you were to ask one of these protestors “What about 9-11?”, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if he or she replied “9 what?”
I’ll end this post with some non-depressing news. The majority of Iowans don’t agree with our brave poet dissenters.
. . .
EXCELLENT POINT
Joe, one of my most loyal readers, left this insightful comment regarding my posts on economic development from yesterday:
I wonder if Trans-Ova has any Iowa competitors, and if so, how they feel about paying taxes to finance the "investment."
Very nice food for thought: Why should the state government favor one genetics company over another? And is it fair that other genetics companies are forced to pay for Trans Ova’s expansion? (I think those questions cross the line into “rhetorical.”)
But we can take this beyond Trans Ova’s competitors. Why should the state favor any company over another? If you look closely at any of the proposed development plans, you’ll notice that there is no money for supermarkets or casinos. Yet companies like Hy-Vee, Wal-Mart, Catfish Bend, and Isle of Capri will have to pay taxes to support the development of companies like Trans Ova.
This used to be known as “Robbing Peter to Pay Paul.” But when government does it, it’s called “economic development.”
. . .
PLAYING HARDBALL REVISITED
I found this story in the Des Moines Register interesting, especially for what it did not say. It looks like Senator Grassley is buckling under to pressure from the White House to support the Bush tax cut. (All to the good, as far as I’m concerned.)
What it leaves out is the “why.” Last week the Register reported that Grassley was upset at the Bush budget because it cut some farm programs that he favors. At the time, I said that this was the Administration’s way of exerting leverage to get Grassley on board on the tax cut. The only flaw in my thinking: I said it would take “about a month” to get Grassley turned around. Guess it was a bit quicker.
. . .
A BETTER RISK CALCULATION
The Des Moines Register doesn’t like President Bush’s proposal to spend $6 billion on a bioterror initiative called Project Bioshield. Here’s the key quote:
Project Bioshield draws public attention to a threat that is, in reality, minimal.
That doesn't make the prospect any less frightening, but it does call for a rational cost-benefit analysis of the risk compared to the cost of trying to achieve absolute security.
Indulge me for a minute. I’ve rewritten that quote to read:
The Kyoto Treaty draws public attention to a threat that is, in reality, minimal.
That doesn't make the prospect [of global warming] any less frightening, but it does call for a rational cost-benefit analysis of the risk compared to the cost of trying to achieve substantial reduction in global temperatures.
I know, I know. We’ll never see a paragraph like that from the Register. But it was kind of fun, wasn’t it?
. . .
Wednesday, February 12, 2003
RADICAL ISLAM, NOT JUST AL QAEDA
The Des Moines Register’s anti-war stance is really getting silly—not that it was ever too serious. In the wake of the new bin Laden tape it trots out the tired argument about how our focus on Iraq is misplaced:
George Tenet, CIA director, told a Senate committee Tuesday that al-Qaida is planning attacks on the United States and the Arabian Peninsula. He called reports "the most specific we have seen." He said the terrorist network is"still dedicated to striking the U.S. homeland."
FBI Director Robert Mueller added, "FBI investigations have revealed Islamic militants in the United States, and we strongly suspect that several hundred of these extremists are linked to al-Qaida."
Al-Qaida.
Not Saddam Hussein.
Myopia Incorporated. This is a battle against Radical Islam. That means we go after not only its practitioners, like al Qaeda, but also its enablers like Iraq. To reduce this to a fight against one group is to miss the bigger picture.
It’s this shortsightedness that leads the Register to end the editorial with this sentence:
How much of the threat from al-Qaida could have been eliminated by now if U.S. attention had focused on the terrorist group as much as it has on Iraq?
And if we had ignored Iraq, we would have ignored the greatest potential supplier of weapons of mass destruction to the purveyors of Radical Islam. This battle isn’t just about eliminating the groups that practice terrorism. It’s also about removing their means of support. That’s why going after Iraq is so important.
. . .
TO FOSTER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, LET’S MAKE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MORE COSTLY
That’s the best way to describe a new proposal from the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation. This plan involves the state borrowing $6 billion—yes, that’s “billion” with a “B”—to “invest” in various economic development programs. The $6 billion will be paid back with a “statewide property tax of 4.5 cents per $1,000 of taxable valuation on all property.” As David Yepsen notes in his column, this is a tax increase.
So let’s get this straight. To fund economic development in Iowa, we are going to raise property taxes. But raising property taxes would raise the cost of doing business in this state. Raising the cost of doing business translates into—you guessed it!—raising the cost of economic development. Hence, the proposal can be summed up as: To promote economic development, we increase the cost of economic development.
I’m sure there are even dumber ideas out there. I just can’t think of any right now.
. . .
SOME MORE THOUGHTS
While I’m on the subject of state economic development, let me add a few random thoughts based on Yepsen’s column and this Register editorial encouraging the state to give $25 million to the Trans Ova Genetics company to build an animal biotechnology center.
1. As Yepsen notes:
But there is bad news to this plan. First, it's a tax increase. Politicians promised not to do that, and it will take an artful selling job for Statehouse leaders to explain how we can tax our way to prosperity.
Yep, that promise looks to be disappearing like a you-know-what in the wind. No surprise there. For more on tax increases in Iowa, see this piece.
2. Yepsen also writes, “At one level, the plan has merit. Haven't we all been grumbling how ‘we've got to do something’ to get things going in our state?” Here, I think, is the crux of the problem. The “we” means the state government. Yet, aside from a few vital functions like providing some infrastructure and enforcing the laws, there isn’t much government can do to promote economic development. Indeed, the lesson of the 20th Century is that the more a government meddles in the economy, the worse the economy performs. The problem with all of these economic development plans for Iowa is that it is premised on the discredited belief that government can make the economy grow.
3. The rhetoric in the editorial is interesting. The proposed $25 million that the state might give to Trans Ova is not a “handout” or a “giveaway.” No, no. It’s an “investment.” The editorial uses some form of the word “invest” four times including the title. Hmmm….am I going too far out on a limb in suggesting that if the Governor’s mansion were currently occupied by a Republican, the Register would be calling this idea by its proper name, “corporate welfare”?
. . .
Tuesday, February 11, 2003
JURASSIC GNATS
My review of Michael Crichton's recent book at BLOGCRITICS.
. . .
DEMOCRATIC FRIENDS
Stories on both Joe Lieberman and Al Sharpton in the Register this morning. Al Sharpton “promised his campaign would ‘surprise the pundits.’” Oh, I can hardly wait!
To pay tribute to the Democrats, click here.
. . .
Monday, February 10, 2003
HYDROGEN-POWERED GOVERNMENT
The Register is having a government love-fest this morning (see below). Now they approve of Bush’s decision to fund research for hydrogen-powered cars. Given that private industry is already doing research into such cars, it’s not clear why the government needs to get involved. The Register tries to clear it up:
Bush's proposal has been criticized as unnecessary, because private industry already is investing heavily in hydrogen without the government's prodding. But the government could play an important role in helping to arrive at the standards that must be established before a market for hydrogen can be established.
For instance, there is no agreement on whether a vehicle's fuel tank should contain hydrogen as a compressed gas, as a liquid or absorbed in metal hydrides. There is debate whether the next generation of fuel will be pure hydrogen or whether there will be an interim phase in which the hydrogen in natural gas or methanol is used. Will hydrogen be piped to filling stations of the future, or will it be manufactured on the spot? Standard practices will need to be arrived at. Government research could help develop them.
Or private research could help develop them. And government meddling could turn a good idea into a mess.
To support the development of hydrogen-powered cars, the Register then uses this historical example:
It may seem an impossible dream to produce hydrogen cheaply and build the massive infrastructure to deliver it to every filling station or every home. But think of how quickly the Model T came to market. Think of how quickly an obscure cleaning fluid called gasoline became available at pumps on every street corner. Think of how quickly convenience stores pop up around the country. So could hydrogen stations.
This is all largely accurate, but the question arises was there a lot of government-funded research into the development of cars and gasoline? Given that there wasn’t, it seems pretty bone-headed of the Register to use an example that shows how well the free market works when its trying to make the case that government should be involved in the development of a new technology. But that’s par for the course, isn’t it?
. . .
WE WANT MORE. NOW!
An editorial in the Des Moines Register bemoans the Medicare reimbursement rate in Iowa, because
In 2000, Iowa received $3,053 in Medicare payments per enrollee from the federal government - 50th in the nation. In 2001, the payments moved up to $3,414, but remained dead last on the chart.
This is really a piece of work. First of all, if Iowa receives more and moves out of last place, it simply means that another state will fall to the bottom. Perhaps I’m going out on a limb here, but won’t the new last-place state start demanding more money? Indeed, in typical liberal fashion there is no concern for the cost of the increasing Iowa’s reimbursement rate or who is going to pay it. (Funny how liberals are only concerned about cost when it come to tax cuts.)
Yet,
There is concern, however, about privately administered plans. They haven't worked well. Insurance companies are reluctant to administer the plans, or they drop out. Studies show they cost the federal government more money than the traditional Medicare plan. They risk taking the health care of seniors out of the hands of the government and handing it over to industry, which is driven by profit and has higher administrative costs.
No concern for how to pay for higher Medicare reimbursement rates. But the minute you introduce private industry and profit, the Register gets the shakes.
. . .
AND THE WORLD IS COMING TO AN END
The Des Moines Register is surrendering to hysteria over school funding:
Iowa is devastating its own best asset: public education.
Are schools facing deep cuts in the state budget? Actually,
Vilsack and the Legislature have agreed that the state's share of the school-aid formula will increase by about $50 million for 2003-04. Vilsack is also proposing slightly more money for Iowa's teacher-compensation plan.
But none of this is enough. Nor is his proposed school-aid formula increase for 2004-05, which will cost the state about $43 million.
Only in government is a $93 million dollar increase in funding over two years “not enough”. But never mind. According to the Register the damage is being done:
Meanwhile, don't kid yourself. No matter what anyone says, school quality cannot be as high as when class sizes were smaller and academic materials were more plentiful and more courses were offered.
Perhaps the Register editorialists should take a look at actual K-12 enrollment numbers before they panic. It has been declining the last few years.
Hmmm….if a need is declining over time, shouldn’t that need receive less funding? And if that need is declining, but it is receiving more funding, then isn’t a funding crisis caused by how the money is spent?
Just some things to think about.
. . .
GO, HOWIE GO!
Vermont Governor Dean Howard is all over his fellow candidates for the Democratic nomination. His big beef is their support of the resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq.
Attaboy Dean! Keep pushing your party to the left.
. . .
|
. . .
|
