I also find references to Network quite tired, so don't get your hopes up.
Edit: I admit it... I have no idea how to use trackbacks. I'm gonna figure this thing out...
A favorite economist of mine posts his thoughts here with a link through to an op-ed he wrote. Read it; its good and he sounds like he could use the encouragement :-)
This health-care boondoggle will be a disaster for this country. I'm not going to rehash the reasons here; they're well documented elsewhere. I would like to add one additional goal to Dr. Kling's list:
I'm not sure the deferred compensation (pensions, etc.) for elected officials is quite as lavish as many think, though I have no doubt it provides a comfortable existence. I suggest eliminating it to provide a strong disincentive for career politicians. This will force those who would deem themselves the "ruling class" to get REAL jobs, work for a living, and save enough for their own future before they go off to City Hall/Columbus (insert state capital here)/Washington D.C. and force their will over our lives. The change in incentives will be shocking.
To my second goal, the only way that the amount of money spent on medical care will be reduced will be if individuals are responsible for paying a greater share of the expense. Elected officials should be forced to take personal responsibility for these costs where it involves themselves and their families.
Also, by forcing elected officials into the individual market they will be confronted directly with the reasons WHY individual insurance is so expensive (coverage mandates, community rating, state limits of suppliers).
Notice the phrase I used above, "amount of money spent on medical care." I didn't call it "health care costs," "price of health care," or "health expenses." Those three things are all determined by market forces; none of them accurately identifies the "problem" that our Federal government is trying to "solve." In fact, when phrased accurately the "problem" looks a little ridiculous. Individuals spending money on a service is an individual choice; it only becomes a problem when tax dollars are in play. Maybe the real problem is spending tax dollars on something individuals should be responsible to purchase on their own.
Edit: I admit it... I have no idea how to use trackbacks. I'm gonna figure this thing out...
A favorite economist of mine posts his thoughts here with a link through to an op-ed he wrote. Read it; its good and he sounds like he could use the encouragement :-)
This health-care boondoggle will be a disaster for this country. I'm not going to rehash the reasons here; they're well documented elsewhere. I would like to add one additional goal to Dr. Kling's list:
- Eliminate deferred compensation for elected officials
- Eliminate health benefits for elected officials
I'm not sure the deferred compensation (pensions, etc.) for elected officials is quite as lavish as many think, though I have no doubt it provides a comfortable existence. I suggest eliminating it to provide a strong disincentive for career politicians. This will force those who would deem themselves the "ruling class" to get REAL jobs, work for a living, and save enough for their own future before they go off to City Hall/Columbus (insert state capital here)/Washington D.C. and force their will over our lives. The change in incentives will be shocking.
To my second goal, the only way that the amount of money spent on medical care will be reduced will be if individuals are responsible for paying a greater share of the expense. Elected officials should be forced to take personal responsibility for these costs where it involves themselves and their families.
Also, by forcing elected officials into the individual market they will be confronted directly with the reasons WHY individual insurance is so expensive (coverage mandates, community rating, state limits of suppliers).
Notice the phrase I used above, "amount of money spent on medical care." I didn't call it "health care costs," "price of health care," or "health expenses." Those three things are all determined by market forces; none of them accurately identifies the "problem" that our Federal government is trying to "solve." In fact, when phrased accurately the "problem" looks a little ridiculous. Individuals spending money on a service is an individual choice; it only becomes a problem when tax dollars are in play. Maybe the real problem is spending tax dollars on something individuals should be responsible to purchase on their own.
