Health Care

Been a while folks. I'll be back soon with a real post, but first, check out this interesting little docu-news piece about one of the many complexities around the health care debate that needs to be considered before we go and nationalize the whole system.

From the WSJ.

Sex Change free at Goldman Sachs

Due to some very unique perks, Goldman Sachs was recently ranked 9th in Fortune Magazine’s annual list of 100 Best Companies to Work For. The financial giant added sex reassignment surgery to its health insurance coverage, reasoning that it would help “attract top talent and retain a more diverse workforce.”

While I personally believe the desire to chop your dick off is a personal choice, if not a bit unusual, it’s hard to challenge a private company for doing something that it believes will ultimately help it’s bottom line. Goldman had the foresight to avoid the current mortgage crisis and we should at least give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to navigating a little foreskin. But there are a couple of things about this that bother me.

First, while most employees at Goldman can afford expensive coverage that includes less-than-mainstream health options, the $40K-a-year secretary who’s a divorced mother of three still has to pay into the plan. This means that she is subsidizing Richie Rich’s deep-seated need to have breasts. Why should the janitor, or the kid in the data-entry department have to pay more for his asthma inhaler because someone else needs the company to pay for her testosterone? Let those who are deeply confused get some therapy and pay for a shiny new vagina with their seven-figure bonus.

More importantly, this sets a horrible health care precedent. In a 2009 world in which the Democrats may hold the White House and Congress, a Clinton or Obama universal health care will be at the top of the agenda. If it ever passes, you can bet that it will be loaded with non-medical mandated coverage that hikes up the price. Check out this quote from an article on Heritage.org (a conservative think tank):

According to the Council for Affordable Health Insurance, mandated benefits increase the cost of basic health coverage by as much as 60 percent or more in mandate-crazy jurisdictions such as in Minnesota, Maryland and Virginia. Even in states with relatively few mandates, the nanny-state premium adds 20 percent to the cost of coverage.

Do you think that Gay and Lesbian special interest groups will not eventually push to add sex change operations to the list of mandated coverage? By the way, this isn’t an anti-gay rant: my libertarian side believes that government shouldn’t legislate who can and cannot get married, but it shouldn’t make tax payers cough up money for Jack to become Jill any more than it should pay for every guy in the country to get penis enlargement surgery. People in this country are free to do what they choose, but citizens shouldn’t be forced to subsidize whacked-out desires.

10 New Year's Wishes for 2008

1) No Hillary
2) No Obama
3) A New York Giants Super Bowl Victory
4) Status Quo on Health Care (if there’s a Democratic President and Congress)
5) Major comprehensive Health Care Reform (if the Republicans make a sweep)
6) A New York Yankees World Series Victory
7) A doubling of my blog’s readership (this will bring total eyeballs to 8. For any Democrats reading this, that’s 4 people)
8) Catch Osama
9) No nukes for Iran
10) A New York Times cease fire on Rudy

Misleading Health Care Numbers

Greg Mankiw wrote a piece in today's NY Times that calls many accepted beliefs on health care into question: Beyond Those Health Care Numbers.

I'm not saying we need to yank coverage away from those who are in desperate need, but I certainly don't think that we'd be better off with a European health care model. Think about what it's like when you go to the DMV. Now think about what it would be like if you had to go to the DMV when you needed care. They can barely take a good polaroid of your face, how well do you think they'll do when they take an MRI of your brain?

The New York Times Advocates a Tax Hike, but Low Taxes Work

The New York Times ran an opinion piece on taxes and national healthcare that is clearly the antidote to a healthy economy. It’s scary to think that this is the type of view that a Democratic president would champion. The Times says:

“This country’s meager tax take puts its economic prospects at risk and leaves the government ill equipped to face the challenges from globalization.

"Germans…paid more in taxes, as a share of their economies.”

But when you look at what makes an economy tick, it’s generally low taxes, limited regulation, and a fair system of justice. Major tax cuts have historically proven that individuals - champions of innovation and limitless human ingenuity - drive positive and robust growth when government is not overbearing. For example, Kennedy’s major tax overhaul, Reagan’s supply-side reform, and Bush’s 2003 program, show cutting taxes, not raising them is the handmaiden of success. Take a look at the three charts at the top, which show revenue, employment, and GDP growth since the Bush cuts were enacted. The third box also shows that the middle class is not shouldering this burden. In fact, it's just the opposite.

Think this only works in the United States? In a 2005 op-ed, Thomas Friedman extolled the virtues of lowering taxes in Ireland, a perennial bottom-feeder.

This is what he had to say:

“Ireland today is the richest country in the European Union after Luxembourg…while those following the French-German social model are suffering high unemployment and low growth…a program of fiscal austerity, slashing corporate taxes to 12.5 percent, far below the rest of Europe...And overall government tax receipts are way up.”

Growth and innovation are on the march in the land of St. Pat's. The world is certainly flat when Dell, Intel, and other corporate captains of industry call Ireland home. Among other things, they were both attracted by “low corporate taxes.”

The Times is also a proponent of a Hillary Clinton-type national healthcare:

“From universal health insurance to decent unemployment insurance, other rich nations provide their citizens benefits that the United States government simply cannot afford.

“The consequences include some 47 million Americans without health insurance and companies like General Motors being dragged to the brink by the cost of providing workers and pensioners with medical care.”

Greg Mankiw, professor of economics at Harvard University counters this perspective nicely:

"What the Times seems to be saying is that because companies like General Motors have promised levels of compensation too large to make them competitive in the international marketplace, we should shift the responsibility for some of that compensation from the companies to the taxpayer. An alternative approach is for the companies to reduce compensation to levels they can afford. One might respond that reduced compensation would be hard on workers. But so would the higher taxes needed to pay for the national health insurance the Times is lobbying for. There is no free lunch here."

As economies in the 21t century become more knowledge and information based, successful governments will allow individuals to flourish and promote a light-footprint approach. Heavy-handedness will only serve to stifle both rich and poor alike.