razma766's Blog

Here is a letter I recently sent to the Midland Daily News:

Joe Weir, in his recent letter, offers an extensive analysis of the health care bill recently passed by congress (“Understanding health care reform,” May 16).  Amongst all the cost savings and benefits, he cites the following projection: “The legislation will reduce the deficit by over $100 billion over the next ten years and by about $1 trillion over the second decade.”
The following are four examples of government’s ability to forecast government health care costs in the past:
 
1.       When Medicare was created in the 1960s, the long-range forecasts estimated that the program would cost about $12 billion by 1990. It ended up actually costing $110 billion that year, or nine times more than expected
 
2.       When Medicaid was created in 1965, it was supposed to be a very small program with annual expenditures of about $1 billion. It now costs federal taxpayers $280 billion per year.
 
3.       Medicaid’s disproportionate share hospital (DSH) program was created in 1987 to subsidize hospitals with large numbers of uninsured patients. The program was supposed to cost $1 billion in 1992, but actually cost $17 billion.
 
4.       The Medicare Catastrophic Coverage of 1988 was repealed after less than two years, in part because some provisions were already projected to cost six times more than originally forecast.*
 
The examples above do not prove that the $100 billion dollar deficit reduction projection is inaccurate.  They should, however, make one skeptical of government’s ability to accurately forecast the costs of the most recent health care reform.
 
Kurt Bouwhuis
 
 
* Daniel J. Mitchell, Will Federal Health Legislation Cause the Deficit to Soar? (Tax and Budget Bulletin 2009)

Here is a letter I recently sent to the Midland Daily News:

Jeanne Berube was recently “in disbelief when a local shipping store was going to charge [her] shopping friend $10.40 for an $8.80 book of twenty stamps” (“Buyer beware,” April 26).

Local convenience stores sell a gallon of milk for $2.99, while large grocery chains sell the same gallon of milk for $1.99. A 20oz Coke may cost $1.25 in some vending machines and $1.75 in others. Higher prices for identical products are not cause for concern, but rather, a direct reflection of the costs of convenience.

Kurt Bouwhuis

This outstanding article was provided by FEE.  Click here for entire article.

At one time, countless people found one or more of the following reasons adequate grounds on which  to oppose the abolition of slavery. Yet in retrospect, these reasons seem shabby—more rationalizations than reasons.

Today these reasons or very similar ones are used by opponents of a different form of abolitionism: the proposal that government as we know it—monopolistic, individually nonconsensual rule by an armed group that demands obedience and payment of taxes—be abolished. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide whether the following reasons are more compelling in this regard than they were in regard to the proposed abolition of slavery.

1. Slavery is natural.

2. Slavery has always existed.

3. Every society on earth has slavery.

4. The slaves are not capable of taking care of themselves.

5. Without masters, the slaves will die off.

6. Where the common people are free, they are even worse off than slaves.

7. Getting rid of slavery would occasion great bloodshed and other evils.

8. Without slavery the former slaves would run amuck, stealing, raping, killing, and generally causing mayhem.

9. Trying to get rid of slavery is foolishly utopian and impractical; only a fuzzy-headed dreamer would advance such a cockamamie proposal. Serious people cannot afford to waste their time considering such farfetched ideas.

10. Forget abolition. A far better plan is to keep the slaves sufficiently well fed, clothed, housed, and occasionally entertained and to take their minds off their exploitation by encouraging them to focus on the better life that awaits them in the hereafter. We cannot expect fairness or justice in this life, but all of us, including the slaves, can aspire to a life of ease and joy in Paradise.

Here is a letter I recently sent to the Midland Daily news:

Colin Mealey, in his recent letter, offers a good analysis of the recent health care situation in America (“Join the Private Sector?,” April 15). The following two recommendations in the concluding paragraph, however, would likely worsen the situation: “…instead of totally revamping the system, why not just put a cap on how much health insurance can cost? Another idea, if the government thinks they can take over something as complex as healthcare, let them set up their own system and join the private sector for a little while.”

The first suggestion, to impose a price cap, would only result in shortages. Shortages always occur when a maximum price, also known as a price ceiling, is placed below the market price. For instance, if health insurance is generally provided for $800 a month and a maximum price of $600 a month is set, fewer suppliers will be willing to supply it and more demanders will be willing to purchase it.

The second suggestion, which would allow the government to “compete” against private companies, would result in lower prices for health insurance and increased taxes (whether it is in the form of a tax, debt, or inflation). Businesses, unlike governments, must serve consumers to exist. If a business does not serve enough customers to profit, it must file for bankruptcy or dissolve. Governments, on the other hand, have the ability to tax, or, put another way, have the ability to earn income regardless of the outcomes generated. This unique capability would conceivably allow the government to set health insurance prices below market prices by subsidizing its losses with taxes until all businesses were out of the market.

Kurt Bouwhuis