In her Friday Aug 16 speech, VP Harris offered admirable goals: “opportunity” and “lowering costs.” Opportunity is the antithesis of “equity,” and was a Paul Ryan/Jack Kemp Republican mantra.
Great idea, and we might actually get a few of those if the Dems don't manage to steal another election. Talk is cheap though - are you voting for Trump?
I don't know how you think Trump will accomplish any of these. His whole economic policy is about tariffs and protectionism. Neither party will enact much off this list.
I'm not going to disagree with you on some things there, but the combination of raising tariffs and significantly restricting immigration is a recipe for more inflation, and goes against the entire "lower cost" list here.
I'm not quite sure how you would characterize 'significantly restricting immigration' as inflationary, unless you and I have radically different ideas about what 'significantly restricting immigration' means. I define it as 'Prioritize Economic Immigration', which I also deem to include "Stop the open border disaster". Other than that, I'm pretty sure Trump would do the following:
Eliminate corporate taxes:
National right to work:
Remove rent controls
Remove all "energy efficiency" mandates
Remove all 'green energy' subsidies/mandates
End the 'whole of government' war on fossil fuels
Universal school vouchers
No more teachers unions, eliminate dept of Education
No more subsidies for pointless college majors (or for ANY majors as far as I'm concerned!)
And I actually think Trump could do a lot of this in the 4 years he has, and if J.D. Vance or some other younger GOP candidate can win in 2028, the rest of the list would come along as well
I'm not a fan of open borders, but I don't think Trump would enact a "high fence, wide gate" immigration policy either. I just don't know -- his campaign is light on specifics, frankly, (for example -- how do you address the debt while keeping Social Security and Medicare off the table?) and so people project on it what they think will happen.
The fact is that entire sectors of the economy (e.g., meatpacking, harvesting vegetables, roofing, construction, CNAs) rely on backbreaking labor provided by immigrants, illegal or otherwise. Keep immigrants out, and wages will have to increase to try and attract Americans to these sectors. Textbook inflation.
I'm not saying keeping costs down by having unlimited immigrants either is the answer; I'm just saying I don't think either candidate has a plan here. Harris just proposed price controls on groceries, which is also economically crazy.
I guess I don't understand your position. America has had specific immigrations policies since it's founding - sometimes loose, sometimes restrictive, but NEVER completely open borders. No nation without rational immigration control can last long - just look at what is happening now in Europe. In the last four years, we have been swamped in illegal immigrants, to IMMENSE cost - free housing, free medical care, etc. This wave of immigrants isn't a labor supply - its a financial disaster all the way up and down the chain, and all patently lawless (hence the name "Illegal" in "Illegal immigration").
And Trump certainly has a plan that he has announced over and over again - the immediate deportation of ALL illegal immigrants, and completion of the southern border wall. I don't think it gets any more explicit than that.
That you claim that “tariffs and protectionism” is his whole economic policy demonstrates either hyperpartisanship or profound ignorance.
There is plenty to dislike about Trump, as well as a few of his policies (most notably his “stealing” the Democrat ideas of prolific spending and being unwilling to touch reforming entitlements), and I am no fan of tariffs, but a) the idea that tariffs are his whole economic policy, or b) that there is any question that his economic policy is *far* superior to that of Kamala Harris and the Democrats, is sheer lunacy.
Yes, and I have lots of other reforms, to reduce spending, reform taxes, increase growth. But I was trying to keep it down to things that visibly reduce "costs."
I agree that it can reasonably be interpreted as not taxing *contributions* to churches.
But if you are proposing taxing universities, I gotta believe you mean taxing the capital gains/dividends from endowments, right? And so if you are going to do that, I see nothing wrong with taxing any earnings of a church that are similar in nature to an endowment.
If you want to argue that university donations should be taxable income to the university, then that is the one case I’d agree that the first amendment would stop the tax on churches. But personally, I don’t actually believe the donations themselves to a university should be taxable income for the university (with the possible exception of donations done with the clear purpose of getting a child into the school), even as I completely agree that endowment cap gains / dividends *should* be. Though thinking about it, I’d support eliminating the tax deduction for giving to universities.
If you are talking about property taxes on churches, well, a) that’s a state issue, not federal, and b) I actually think cities SHOULD tax church real estate, as not doing so puts an undue burden on others in the community to fund it. But reasonable people can disagree on this point.
FDA approval should not be required to use a drug or treatment. FDA becomes an advisory body, nothing more, nothing less. Same principle can hold for many other regulatory bodies.
Another idea: instead of repealing laws outright, offer people the possibility to sign a waiver that exempts them. For instance, if I sign a waiver, I am allowed to work for less than the minimum wage.
Repeal would be better, but may not be politically feasible. Waivers are a second best option, and provide some reprieve. Perhaps they wouldn't be popular, but at least there would be more opportunities.
I will concede your last point that there would be more opportunities, and ceteris paribus, that would be better than the status quo.
But imo your waivers solution has approximately a 0.0% chance of being passed anywhere, so IMO it would be even less politically feasible.
And in fairness to you, while you wrote the idea about “laws” in general, if we focus the waiver idea solely on non-FDA approved drugs, perhaps THERE alone we agree that getting a law allowing “‘waivers” to use non-FDA approved drugs (much as terminally ill patients have the right to use experimental drugs today) would have some slight chance of passing.
Why would you want to voluntarily work for less than the minimum wage? Generally curious. Wages are still way behind their 1960s counterparts adjusted for inflation.
“Wages are still way behind their 1960s counterparts adjusted for inflation”
Well, I suppose there might be a way for you to define “counterparts” to make it true, but in fact total compensation has gone up steadily, when you also include the value of fringe benefits paid (e.g. health benefits).
The question is, why do *you* want to prevent someone from voluntarily contracting to a wage with someone who wants to employ her?
…and along with it inability to gain experience and learn job skills.
As Thomas Sowell covers very well, e.g. in Basic Economics.
But really, you shouldn’t expect the kind of leftist who earnestly poses the question “Why would you want to voluntarily work for less than the minimum wage?” To understand this concept.
With the ability to have an abortion as the sole exception, leftists don’t want to give people more options (choices), they want to limit people to doing what THEY “know” is best for them…
What do you mean, "even with Trump"? People act like Trump wasn't already President once and didn't do much of anything except lower some taxes and increase tariffs. The guy isn't small government at all.
Trump eliminated four regulations for every new one passed. Trump tried to repeal Obamadoesntcare; it was pseudo-Republicans who failed miserably to fulfill campaign promises. Trump let energy companies do what they do best, ultimately making the USA a major oil exporter. Trump got the border under control after Obama's disastrous policies. Trump's economy was the first ever to create more job openings than unemployed persons and increased labor participation. Trump re-negotiated the 25-yo NAFTA. Trump fathered the Abraham Accords, greatly furthering peace and progress in the Mideast.
Didn't do much of anything? You obviously were not paying any attention.
Is completely true and well documented. The willingness of you and your echo chamber to minimize the continued lies about the election, acts inspired thereof like January 6, and continual accountability dodging from a public official that should be held to even higher standards than anyone else, is a bigger slap in the face of small government principles than any other American politician has posed since at least FDR.
“but he knows very little about economics, evidently”
Sorry, while there is no doubt Trump knows less about economics than most of the classical liberal types in this comments section, two other things are clearly true:
1) He knows far more about economics than does border czar Kamala Harris
2) Knowledge of economics does not 1-1 correlate with support of good economic publicly policy. Exhibit A: Krugman, Paul.
Personally I’d split the difference: eliminate civil servant protections for anyone above first line manager, plus anyone who’s job involves discretion on how policy is implemented.
1. Eliminate involvement of employers in health care altogether; do this simply by removing from federal and state tax codes all tax implications of health care goods and services, for both businesses and individuals. Remove all tax deductions, tax credits, and tax preferences of any kind that involve health care services or health insurance premiums; remove all interactions between health care and the tax code.
2. Eliminate supply-side restrictions on health care.
a. Rely entirely on private voluntary exchange on the supply side of health care markets.
b. Eliminate barriers to entry for hospitals, clinics, dental schools, nurse training schools, and medical schools, including "certificates of need," and government imposed restrictions on health care training organizations.
c. Eliminate municipal, tax financed, government-subsidized, tax advantaged hospitals and clinics.
d. Allow consumers to decide what levels of health care training are sufficient for their health care needs.
i. Eliminate legal restrictions on health care providers at all levels.
ii. Eliminate government licensure requirements for all levels of health care providers
iii. Promote private certification, like we see for Certified Public Accountants (CPA), Certified Financial Planners (CFP), and Civil Engineering Certification (CEC). Neither federal nor state governments would play a role in certification.
e. Rely on wide-spread information dissemination about individual health care providers, hospitals, and clinics — similar to nutritional content on food packages, Yelp for restaurant reviews, and Consumer Reports for goods and services.
f. Eliminate 3rd party payer models that have removed price competition from health care.
g. Eliminate Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Administration hospitals, and all other health care programs run by government.
3. Eliminate state boundaries for health insurance; allow nationwide competition for whatever health care insurance markets emerge. Eliminate restrictions of any kind on pricing and characteristics of health insurance products.
4. Give low-income individuals and families means-tested health care vouchers to purchase routine health care, similar to the SNAP program. Pay for vouchers from general tax revenue.
5. Eliminate patents for pharmaceuticals. Rely on academic research to develop new drugs, as we largely already do. Academic research is highly motivated by institutional prestige, not sales of drugs. We have no evidence whatsoever that eliminating patents on drugs would reduce research and production for new efficacious drugs in America, notwithstanding loud protests to the contrary from the rent-seeking big pharma corporations.
Implementing the 5-point plan outlined above will lead to the following benefits for people in America:
A. Creation of market prices in health care. As noted by professor Alex Tabarrok, of George Mason University, a market price is "a signal wrapped up in an incentive" for both producers and consumers. Without market prices, producers and consumers have no way to maximize economic efficiency.
B. Reduction in the cost of health care across the board, due to increased supply and reduced demand for health care services.
C. Increased supply of health care services, due to removing supply-side restrictions put in place by government operatives who have catered to rent-seeking health care providers.
D. Greatly reduced wait times in doctors’ offices and hospital emergency rooms, as health care providers begin competing on price and quality of service.
E. Much greater diversification of health care delivery models, such as online diagnosis and service, walk in lab testing, online diagnosis services, quick-service health care clinics, and other business models that no one has yet even imagined (http://reason.com/archives/2014/09/30/supply-side-health-care-reform ).
F. Greatly reduced cost for routine health care services that providers with much less training than an MD can provide with great competence.
G. Lowest feasible cost for health care services across the full range of health care services.
H. The absence of government and its operatives from health care markets, thereby improving economic efficiency and equity across the board.
I. Elimination of the deadweight costs created by subsidies, price controls, and supply-side restrictions. A greater number of people will receive a greater quantity of health care with a higher quality and benefit to individuals, at the lowest possible cost.
But…but…but… imo you needlessly go overboard by combining things that likely would help but would be particularly controversial with things that would unquestionably help (and lack similar major cons).
d ii. (Eliminating all government licensure requirements for medical providers) has pros in terms of lowering costs no doubt, but let’s be honest: it’s one of the last occupational licensing reforms needed, you could address ~90% of the cost issue involved merely by accepting out of state and foreign licenses.
g. Eliminating all those health programs. If you replace them with a subsidy for the relevant people, I’d support you 100%. Since you don’t make that clear, eliminating all of those subsidies as part of your package and you are now arguing something very different.
OBVIOUSLY eliminating Medicare, Medicaid and the VA hospitals would reduce costs and lower prices, but unlike almost all your other proposals, this does so only by demonstrating libertarians to be the caricatured heartless unfeeling people that leftists falsely make us out to be.
(Personally, Medicaid is the one I wouldn’t completely eliminate as a practical matter, but I’d restructure it substantially, and at best my argument here debatable. For everything else, simple replacement with premium support/vouchers would surely be a better way to go.)
All healthcare 'systems' (if you can call our convoluted approach in the US a system) ration health care in some way. Some restrict access, some cap prices, etc. In the US, we ration healthcare primarily by socioeconomic status. So we end up with the best healthcare in the developed world sitting side by side with some of the worst.
US healthcare annual spending per capital is about $13,000. Most developed countries are between $6000 and 8000. Using th3e Bloomberg Health Index (which incorporates factors such as infant mortality, life expectancy, etc., the US ranks 34th in the world.
So we spend 50 - 100% more than our peer group and get among the worst outcomes.
There have been market based approaches proposed to improve this (see Ewe Reainhardt and others) and there have been government control models proposed (single payor, which Obamacare was intended to become). Any of them would likely result in better performance overall than what we have today (and I'm no advocate of government control).
“Bloomberg Health Index (which incorporates factors such as infant mortality, life expectancy, etc., the US ranks 34th in the world.”
But I would argue that somewhere between “almost all” and “more than all” of the explanation for the relatively low U.S. ranking has nothing to do with the healthcare system - suicides, gun deaths, the fact that we until very recently have taken in far more poor immigrants (legally and illegally entering) than Europe, gangs, etc., etc.)
I agree that our system is needlessly expensive, no doubt. But also important to understand that a big portion of why others’ costs are lower is because they can free ride off medical innovations paid for by U.S. consumers.
So I completely agree that one could get better bang for the buck (price/performance) than the current U.S. system. But no current system in the world delivers better care. And with the notable possible exception of Singapore, there is no way I’d trade our system for the nationalized healthcare systems elsewhere. (The enormous dollar saving from Singapore means if my only alternatives were our current system or theirs, I’d probably swap to theirs, but know that in the bargain the quality of care would go down some, since Singapore free rides on us a bit as well.)
Other than drugs and some medical devices, what is your evidence that other country's lower costs are because they 'free ride' on our innovation?
If you compare medical outcomes for case matched procedures in the US and Canada, for example, Canada has the same outcomes (quality) and 25 - 30% lower cost. The biggest single reason is that they don't have the large billing and collections and IT overhead from US hospitals having to manage the most complex reimbursement system in the world.
While the number of migrants in the US certainly drives some medical costs, we were still 50-100% higher cost per capita than the other developed countries 25 years ago before we had the massive number of 'undocumented' people that we have today.
As just one example, our infant mortality rate is about 50th in the world. While the migrant population does play a role in that poor ranking, a leading cause in the big cities that I've studied are that people in the poor inner city neighborhoods get essentially no prenatal care. It is akin to what you see in an underdeveloped country.
When you provide reduced medical care to 20% of your population, it is no surprise that it results in poor average healthcare outcomes for the entire country. No other country that I'm aware of has such a large undertreated population.
The free ride is almost entirely based on the drugs and medical devices. But those are a huge part of the increased quality of medical care in the last 50 years.
But to be VERY clear, I never claimed that that “free ride” was the biggest reason for others’ lower costs.
Exactly how much the ROW would lose out would be a function of exactly how socialist any U.S. single payer system became, and in particular whether or not and how much new drugs and devices created had control over their pricing while under patent.
Probably there’s a little bit of being able to send (rich and/or well-connected) hardest cases to the U.S. for care, especially surgery, but I doubt that’s more than a small factor, at best.
My wife has dual Canadian and U.S. citizenship and did some of her training in Canada. They have very long waiting lists for certain procedures. So long that many people come to the U.S. for those. So Canadians would be the biggest losers of all if the U.S. were to go single payer.
And I’m sorry, while I don’t doubt Canadians have lower costs, I guarantee you that the primary reason is not that “they don't have the large billing and collections and IT overhead”. I don’t deny those are a factor, and I suppose that depending on how you grouped together factors, saying that issue is, say, 1/5th of the reason for the cost delta *might* be true, but if so that doesn’t say much.
I never suggested that caring for illegal immigrants was a factor in higher U.S. costs. It’s merely one additional factor. But of course I already agreed with your assertion that our system is needlessly expensive. And if you are claiming that illegal immigrants count in the rankings you cite, that could well be another factor explaining the lower ranking, I will acknowledge. But again, that is not the fault of the healthcare system.
I just disagreed with your claim that the U.S. health system has much of anything (if indeed at all) to do with U.S. low rankings on anything, and claim that we have the highest quality care in the world. I didn’t say it was worth the price we pay, but I will repeat that it is indeed the highest quality.
Andy, you keep making these pronouncements with nothing to back them up. What is the evidence that the US has the "highest quality" health care? While the best health care in the US is indeed among the best in the world, the average quality is pulled way down by all the people here who get very little or none. This has been studied extensively and it is consistently true over many years.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt. I probably should have passed this gem from Twain to the Dems standard-bearer.
One small objection to "Eliminate corporate taxes. Tax people when they spend corporate profits."
Removing corporate taxes relieves a tax burden on foreign investors in US corporations that will not likely be recaptured by taxing people when they spend corporate profits. I see no particular reason to give this windfall to foreign investors.
It also encourages disguising consumption as corporate expenditures. A worthy goal in theory, but tax policy is hard, esp. when rates are high on one type of activity and zero on a closely related one!
I rarely audibly cheer a opinion article, but this one has me so vociferous that my wife told me that I scared the dog. 😂😂
Great idea, and we might actually get a few of those if the Dems don't manage to steal another election. Talk is cheap though - are you voting for Trump?
It isn’t voting day yet. How would I know? Lots of water to flow under the bridge before Election Day.
I don't know how you think Trump will accomplish any of these. His whole economic policy is about tariffs and protectionism. Neither party will enact much off this list.
You're kidding, right? All Trump has to do is STOP all the progressive green crap, and we'll be way ahead in no time
I'm not going to disagree with you on some things there, but the combination of raising tariffs and significantly restricting immigration is a recipe for more inflation, and goes against the entire "lower cost" list here.
I'm not quite sure how you would characterize 'significantly restricting immigration' as inflationary, unless you and I have radically different ideas about what 'significantly restricting immigration' means. I define it as 'Prioritize Economic Immigration', which I also deem to include "Stop the open border disaster". Other than that, I'm pretty sure Trump would do the following:
Eliminate corporate taxes:
National right to work:
Remove rent controls
Remove all "energy efficiency" mandates
Remove all 'green energy' subsidies/mandates
End the 'whole of government' war on fossil fuels
Universal school vouchers
No more teachers unions, eliminate dept of Education
No more subsidies for pointless college majors (or for ANY majors as far as I'm concerned!)
And I actually think Trump could do a lot of this in the 4 years he has, and if J.D. Vance or some other younger GOP candidate can win in 2028, the rest of the list would come along as well
I'm not a fan of open borders, but I don't think Trump would enact a "high fence, wide gate" immigration policy either. I just don't know -- his campaign is light on specifics, frankly, (for example -- how do you address the debt while keeping Social Security and Medicare off the table?) and so people project on it what they think will happen.
The fact is that entire sectors of the economy (e.g., meatpacking, harvesting vegetables, roofing, construction, CNAs) rely on backbreaking labor provided by immigrants, illegal or otherwise. Keep immigrants out, and wages will have to increase to try and attract Americans to these sectors. Textbook inflation.
I'm not saying keeping costs down by having unlimited immigrants either is the answer; I'm just saying I don't think either candidate has a plan here. Harris just proposed price controls on groceries, which is also economically crazy.
I guess I don't understand your position. America has had specific immigrations policies since it's founding - sometimes loose, sometimes restrictive, but NEVER completely open borders. No nation without rational immigration control can last long - just look at what is happening now in Europe. In the last four years, we have been swamped in illegal immigrants, to IMMENSE cost - free housing, free medical care, etc. This wave of immigrants isn't a labor supply - its a financial disaster all the way up and down the chain, and all patently lawless (hence the name "Illegal" in "Illegal immigration").
And Trump certainly has a plan that he has announced over and over again - the immediate deportation of ALL illegal immigrants, and completion of the southern border wall. I don't think it gets any more explicit than that.
That you claim that “tariffs and protectionism” is his whole economic policy demonstrates either hyperpartisanship or profound ignorance.
There is plenty to dislike about Trump, as well as a few of his policies (most notably his “stealing” the Democrat ideas of prolific spending and being unwilling to touch reforming entitlements), and I am no fan of tariffs, but a) the idea that tariffs are his whole economic policy, or b) that there is any question that his economic policy is *far* superior to that of Kamala Harris and the Democrats, is sheer lunacy.
Well Done!!!
Repeal the Jones Act.
Love it, all of it!
I would add that non-profits, including universities, should be taxed at normal rates; and that
Higher ed loans should be disbursed at market rates.
That would solve many of the problems of higher education.
Yes, and I have lots of other reforms, to reduce spending, reform taxes, increase growth. But I was trying to keep it down to things that visibly reduce "costs."
As long as you tax churches as well.
Ever hear of the First Amendment? It's in the Constitution.
I’m a big fan of the First Amendment.
I agree that it can reasonably be interpreted as not taxing *contributions* to churches.
But if you are proposing taxing universities, I gotta believe you mean taxing the capital gains/dividends from endowments, right? And so if you are going to do that, I see nothing wrong with taxing any earnings of a church that are similar in nature to an endowment.
If you want to argue that university donations should be taxable income to the university, then that is the one case I’d agree that the first amendment would stop the tax on churches. But personally, I don’t actually believe the donations themselves to a university should be taxable income for the university (with the possible exception of donations done with the clear purpose of getting a child into the school), even as I completely agree that endowment cap gains / dividends *should* be. Though thinking about it, I’d support eliminating the tax deduction for giving to universities.
If you are talking about property taxes on churches, well, a) that’s a state issue, not federal, and b) I actually think cities SHOULD tax church real estate, as not doing so puts an undue burden on others in the community to fund it. But reasonable people can disagree on this point.
Sure it is. But when they get into the political realm, it should automatically remove their tax exempt status.
Well, I might agree with the sentiment, but who is it that gets to determine “automatically”, or what is and is not in “the political realm”?
That said, if you’re speaking of universities, I agree with you completely. For churches, OTOH, I’d disagree.
Tax universities & colleges too
Suddenly the "no taxes" crowd loves taxes. Imagine that lol.
Henry Simons has been resurrected and improved(his trust busting proclivities are anachronostic). Go Maroons
Amen
FDA approval should not be required to use a drug or treatment. FDA becomes an advisory body, nothing more, nothing less. Same principle can hold for many other regulatory bodies.
Another idea: instead of repealing laws outright, offer people the possibility to sign a waiver that exempts them. For instance, if I sign a waiver, I am allowed to work for less than the minimum wage.
I love your first idea. Hate your 2nd. Besides being onerous to implement, why should someone need to sign a “waiver”?
Repeal would be better, but may not be politically feasible. Waivers are a second best option, and provide some reprieve. Perhaps they wouldn't be popular, but at least there would be more opportunities.
I will concede your last point that there would be more opportunities, and ceteris paribus, that would be better than the status quo.
But imo your waivers solution has approximately a 0.0% chance of being passed anywhere, so IMO it would be even less politically feasible.
And in fairness to you, while you wrote the idea about “laws” in general, if we focus the waiver idea solely on non-FDA approved drugs, perhaps THERE alone we agree that getting a law allowing “‘waivers” to use non-FDA approved drugs (much as terminally ill patients have the right to use experimental drugs today) would have some slight chance of passing.
Cheers.
Why would you want to voluntarily work for less than the minimum wage? Generally curious. Wages are still way behind their 1960s counterparts adjusted for inflation.
“Wages are still way behind their 1960s counterparts adjusted for inflation”
Well, I suppose there might be a way for you to define “counterparts” to make it true, but in fact total compensation has gone up steadily, when you also include the value of fringe benefits paid (e.g. health benefits).
The question is, why do *you* want to prevent someone from voluntarily contracting to a wage with someone who wants to employ her?
If the alternative is unemployment, then people might want to have this option.
…and along with it inability to gain experience and learn job skills.
As Thomas Sowell covers very well, e.g. in Basic Economics.
But really, you shouldn’t expect the kind of leftist who earnestly poses the question “Why would you want to voluntarily work for less than the minimum wage?” To understand this concept.
With the ability to have an abortion as the sole exception, leftists don’t want to give people more options (choices), they want to limit people to doing what THEY “know” is best for them…
I’m mostly a libertarian, so I applaud each of your recommendations. But is there any reason to be hopeful?
Oh wouldn’t it be wonderful? Not sure any of this happens even with Trump. Sad to say.
What do you mean, "even with Trump"? People act like Trump wasn't already President once and didn't do much of anything except lower some taxes and increase tariffs. The guy isn't small government at all.
Trump eliminated four regulations for every new one passed. Trump tried to repeal Obamadoesntcare; it was pseudo-Republicans who failed miserably to fulfill campaign promises. Trump let energy companies do what they do best, ultimately making the USA a major oil exporter. Trump got the border under control after Obama's disastrous policies. Trump's economy was the first ever to create more job openings than unemployed persons and increased labor participation. Trump re-negotiated the 25-yo NAFTA. Trump fathered the Abraham Accords, greatly furthering peace and progress in the Mideast.
Didn't do much of anything? You obviously were not paying any attention.
Yeah, he tried to get rid of regulations like rule of law, democratic elections, and peaceful transfer of power. Small government for sure.
Every word of that is utterly absurd, totally false.
Is completely true and well documented. The willingness of you and your echo chamber to minimize the continued lies about the election, acts inspired thereof like January 6, and continual accountability dodging from a public official that should be held to even higher standards than anyone else, is a bigger slap in the face of small government principles than any other American politician has posed since at least FDR.
And of course there are the other little lies, for example Trump didn't do much of anything for illegal immigration (https://www.cato.org/blog/president-trump-reduced-legal-immigration-he-did-not-reduce-illegal-immigration).
It's just lie after lie with people like you, unabashedly and without even the slightest pretense of due diligence. Just echo, echo, echo.
…well, except small government. On spending, let’s be honest, he’s almost as bad as the Dems.
Trump is not a classical liberal. Trump is a Trumpite. He is a patriot, but he knows very little about economics, evidently.
“but he knows very little about economics, evidently”
Sorry, while there is no doubt Trump knows less about economics than most of the classical liberal types in this comments section, two other things are clearly true:
1) He knows far more about economics than does border czar Kamala Harris
2) Knowledge of economics does not 1-1 correlate with support of good economic publicly policy. Exhibit A: Krugman, Paul.
Great movements start with hope.
I see none at all
Good list So much of it has been on economists' lists for 40 years and more.
One I'd add is to restore the civil service exam for government employees.
Why? How about just eliminate so called civil servants.
Personally I’d split the difference: eliminate civil servant protections for anyone above first line manager, plus anyone who’s job involves discretion on how policy is implemented.
Great list. Imagine if this actually happened!
It would be stupefying.
1. Eliminate involvement of employers in health care altogether; do this simply by removing from federal and state tax codes all tax implications of health care goods and services, for both businesses and individuals. Remove all tax deductions, tax credits, and tax preferences of any kind that involve health care services or health insurance premiums; remove all interactions between health care and the tax code.
2. Eliminate supply-side restrictions on health care.
a. Rely entirely on private voluntary exchange on the supply side of health care markets.
b. Eliminate barriers to entry for hospitals, clinics, dental schools, nurse training schools, and medical schools, including "certificates of need," and government imposed restrictions on health care training organizations.
c. Eliminate municipal, tax financed, government-subsidized, tax advantaged hospitals and clinics.
d. Allow consumers to decide what levels of health care training are sufficient for their health care needs.
i. Eliminate legal restrictions on health care providers at all levels.
ii. Eliminate government licensure requirements for all levels of health care providers
iii. Promote private certification, like we see for Certified Public Accountants (CPA), Certified Financial Planners (CFP), and Civil Engineering Certification (CEC). Neither federal nor state governments would play a role in certification.
e. Rely on wide-spread information dissemination about individual health care providers, hospitals, and clinics — similar to nutritional content on food packages, Yelp for restaurant reviews, and Consumer Reports for goods and services.
f. Eliminate 3rd party payer models that have removed price competition from health care.
g. Eliminate Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Administration hospitals, and all other health care programs run by government.
3. Eliminate state boundaries for health insurance; allow nationwide competition for whatever health care insurance markets emerge. Eliminate restrictions of any kind on pricing and characteristics of health insurance products.
4. Give low-income individuals and families means-tested health care vouchers to purchase routine health care, similar to the SNAP program. Pay for vouchers from general tax revenue.
5. Eliminate patents for pharmaceuticals. Rely on academic research to develop new drugs, as we largely already do. Academic research is highly motivated by institutional prestige, not sales of drugs. We have no evidence whatsoever that eliminating patents on drugs would reduce research and production for new efficacious drugs in America, notwithstanding loud protests to the contrary from the rent-seeking big pharma corporations.
Implementing the 5-point plan outlined above will lead to the following benefits for people in America:
A. Creation of market prices in health care. As noted by professor Alex Tabarrok, of George Mason University, a market price is "a signal wrapped up in an incentive" for both producers and consumers. Without market prices, producers and consumers have no way to maximize economic efficiency.
B. Reduction in the cost of health care across the board, due to increased supply and reduced demand for health care services.
C. Increased supply of health care services, due to removing supply-side restrictions put in place by government operatives who have catered to rent-seeking health care providers.
D. Greatly reduced wait times in doctors’ offices and hospital emergency rooms, as health care providers begin competing on price and quality of service.
E. Much greater diversification of health care delivery models, such as online diagnosis and service, walk in lab testing, online diagnosis services, quick-service health care clinics, and other business models that no one has yet even imagined (http://reason.com/archives/2014/09/30/supply-side-health-care-reform ).
F. Greatly reduced cost for routine health care services that providers with much less training than an MD can provide with great competence.
G. Lowest feasible cost for health care services across the full range of health care services.
H. The absence of government and its operatives from health care markets, thereby improving economic efficiency and equity across the board.
I. Elimination of the deadweight costs created by subsidies, price controls, and supply-side restrictions. A greater number of people will receive a greater quantity of health care with a higher quality and benefit to individuals, at the lowest possible cost.
But... But... But...
"ordinary people" will never be able to navigate free market health.
Without CON review, the market will be flooded with institutions of cheap charlatans.
Etc. etc. etc.
What evidence do you have for that statement?
Was just speculating as to what all the reflexive arguments that will be made.
To your point, there is no evidence in support - it's just been that way for the last 60 years.
What way? I have been reading other stuff. What has been what way for the last 60 years?
I agree with the thrust of this for sure.
But…but…but… imo you needlessly go overboard by combining things that likely would help but would be particularly controversial with things that would unquestionably help (and lack similar major cons).
d ii. (Eliminating all government licensure requirements for medical providers) has pros in terms of lowering costs no doubt, but let’s be honest: it’s one of the last occupational licensing reforms needed, you could address ~90% of the cost issue involved merely by accepting out of state and foreign licenses.
g. Eliminating all those health programs. If you replace them with a subsidy for the relevant people, I’d support you 100%. Since you don’t make that clear, eliminating all of those subsidies as part of your package and you are now arguing something very different.
OBVIOUSLY eliminating Medicare, Medicaid and the VA hospitals would reduce costs and lower prices, but unlike almost all your other proposals, this does so only by demonstrating libertarians to be the caricatured heartless unfeeling people that leftists falsely make us out to be.
(Personally, Medicaid is the one I wouldn’t completely eliminate as a practical matter, but I’d restructure it substantially, and at best my argument here debatable. For everything else, simple replacement with premium support/vouchers would surely be a better way to go.)
All healthcare 'systems' (if you can call our convoluted approach in the US a system) ration health care in some way. Some restrict access, some cap prices, etc. In the US, we ration healthcare primarily by socioeconomic status. So we end up with the best healthcare in the developed world sitting side by side with some of the worst.
US healthcare annual spending per capital is about $13,000. Most developed countries are between $6000 and 8000. Using th3e Bloomberg Health Index (which incorporates factors such as infant mortality, life expectancy, etc., the US ranks 34th in the world.
So we spend 50 - 100% more than our peer group and get among the worst outcomes.
There have been market based approaches proposed to improve this (see Ewe Reainhardt and others) and there have been government control models proposed (single payor, which Obamacare was intended to become). Any of them would likely result in better performance overall than what we have today (and I'm no advocate of government control).
“Bloomberg Health Index (which incorporates factors such as infant mortality, life expectancy, etc., the US ranks 34th in the world.”
But I would argue that somewhere between “almost all” and “more than all” of the explanation for the relatively low U.S. ranking has nothing to do with the healthcare system - suicides, gun deaths, the fact that we until very recently have taken in far more poor immigrants (legally and illegally entering) than Europe, gangs, etc., etc.)
I agree that our system is needlessly expensive, no doubt. But also important to understand that a big portion of why others’ costs are lower is because they can free ride off medical innovations paid for by U.S. consumers.
So I completely agree that one could get better bang for the buck (price/performance) than the current U.S. system. But no current system in the world delivers better care. And with the notable possible exception of Singapore, there is no way I’d trade our system for the nationalized healthcare systems elsewhere. (The enormous dollar saving from Singapore means if my only alternatives were our current system or theirs, I’d probably swap to theirs, but know that in the bargain the quality of care would go down some, since Singapore free rides on us a bit as well.)
Other than drugs and some medical devices, what is your evidence that other country's lower costs are because they 'free ride' on our innovation?
If you compare medical outcomes for case matched procedures in the US and Canada, for example, Canada has the same outcomes (quality) and 25 - 30% lower cost. The biggest single reason is that they don't have the large billing and collections and IT overhead from US hospitals having to manage the most complex reimbursement system in the world.
While the number of migrants in the US certainly drives some medical costs, we were still 50-100% higher cost per capita than the other developed countries 25 years ago before we had the massive number of 'undocumented' people that we have today.
As just one example, our infant mortality rate is about 50th in the world. While the migrant population does play a role in that poor ranking, a leading cause in the big cities that I've studied are that people in the poor inner city neighborhoods get essentially no prenatal care. It is akin to what you see in an underdeveloped country.
When you provide reduced medical care to 20% of your population, it is no surprise that it results in poor average healthcare outcomes for the entire country. No other country that I'm aware of has such a large undertreated population.
The free ride is almost entirely based on the drugs and medical devices. But those are a huge part of the increased quality of medical care in the last 50 years.
But to be VERY clear, I never claimed that that “free ride” was the biggest reason for others’ lower costs.
Exactly how much the ROW would lose out would be a function of exactly how socialist any U.S. single payer system became, and in particular whether or not and how much new drugs and devices created had control over their pricing while under patent.
Probably there’s a little bit of being able to send (rich and/or well-connected) hardest cases to the U.S. for care, especially surgery, but I doubt that’s more than a small factor, at best.
My wife has dual Canadian and U.S. citizenship and did some of her training in Canada. They have very long waiting lists for certain procedures. So long that many people come to the U.S. for those. So Canadians would be the biggest losers of all if the U.S. were to go single payer.
And I’m sorry, while I don’t doubt Canadians have lower costs, I guarantee you that the primary reason is not that “they don't have the large billing and collections and IT overhead”. I don’t deny those are a factor, and I suppose that depending on how you grouped together factors, saying that issue is, say, 1/5th of the reason for the cost delta *might* be true, but if so that doesn’t say much.
I never suggested that caring for illegal immigrants was a factor in higher U.S. costs. It’s merely one additional factor. But of course I already agreed with your assertion that our system is needlessly expensive. And if you are claiming that illegal immigrants count in the rankings you cite, that could well be another factor explaining the lower ranking, I will acknowledge. But again, that is not the fault of the healthcare system.
I just disagreed with your claim that the U.S. health system has much of anything (if indeed at all) to do with U.S. low rankings on anything, and claim that we have the highest quality care in the world. I didn’t say it was worth the price we pay, but I will repeat that it is indeed the highest quality.
Andy, you keep making these pronouncements with nothing to back them up. What is the evidence that the US has the "highest quality" health care? While the best health care in the US is indeed among the best in the world, the average quality is pulled way down by all the people here who get very little or none. This has been studied extensively and it is consistently true over many years.
For the updates, I think adding something about climate change abuse would make sense. I am reminded for example of this
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2024/06/why-we-cant-have-nice-things-part-xxiv.html
and this
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2023/11/green-groups-housing-crisis-ceqa-environmental-density-nimby/
Thank you John! You show me that wisdom still is found in academia, and in your own mind.
Well done.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt. I probably should have passed this gem from Twain to the Dems standard-bearer.
Oh, they know, they know.
Why do you think border czar Kamala has still not done open press conferences and interviews?
One small objection to "Eliminate corporate taxes. Tax people when they spend corporate profits."
Removing corporate taxes relieves a tax burden on foreign investors in US corporations that will not likely be recaptured by taxing people when they spend corporate profits. I see no particular reason to give this windfall to foreign investors.
It also encourages disguising consumption as corporate expenditures. A worthy goal in theory, but tax policy is hard, esp. when rates are high on one type of activity and zero on a closely related one!
Correct. I would instead let corporations immediately expense all investments (with the possible exception of land).
Fairtax.org solves for that.
Huh? Why are you worried about foreign investors? Corporations don’t pay taxes anyway; corporations remit taxes.