Loyalty to a cause, not a country

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

Joe Manelis, in reference to the Tea Party’s dislike of further government intervention in health care, claims that “this ultra right wing of the Republican party appears to be on a course that is both dangerous and UNAMERICAN” (“Loyalty to country, not a cause,” April 11).

Nonsense.

If the Tea Party movement is both dangerous and UNAMERICAN, then so is the United States Declaration of Independence, which contains the following passage: “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Kurt Bouwhuis

Additional Info on Health Reform

Kurt Bouwhuis, Mackinac Center Intern

Here is some additional information to consider when determining whether or not the health care reform is a net benefit for Americans.  I will only highlight the major points.  To see a more thorough list, check out the information provided by the Tax Foundation (the source of information provided below):

The major provisions, as defined as those projected to raise or lose more than $10 billion within the ten year budget window, are denoted in red.

Retroactive provisions

Exclusion for assistance provided to participants in State student loan repayment programs for certain health professionals (retroactive to January 1, 2009)

Small Business Tax Credit for certain small businesses (those meeting certain criteria) providing health insurance to employees (retroactive to January 1, 2010). In 2013, restricted only to insurance purchased through an exchange and only available for two conseutive years

Exclusion of unprocessed fuels from the cellulosic biofuel producer credit (retroactive to January 1, 2010)

Provisions going into effect on the date bill is signed into law

Provide income exclusion for specified Indian tribe health benefits

Tax Exemption for Certain Member-Run Health Insurance Issuers

Rules pertaining to how the IRS is involved in income-verification and individual status for the purposes of participation in the exchanges and subsidies received

Other provisions going into effect before the end of 2010

July 1, 2010: Impose 10% excise tax on indoor tanning services

Provisions going into effect in 2011

Employer W-2 reporting of value of health benefits

Increase in additional tax on distributions from HSAs and Archer MSAs not used for qualified medical expenses to 20%

Impose annual fee on manufacturers and importers of branded drugs ($2.5 billion for 2011, $2.8 billion per year for 2012 and 2013, $3.0 billion per year for 2014 through 2016, $4.0 billion for 2017, $4.1 billion for 2018, and $2.8 billion for 2019 and thereafter)

Provisions going into effect in 2012

Require information reporting on payments to corporations

Provisions going into effect in 2013

Limit health flexible spending arrangements in cafeteria plans to $2,500; indexed to CPI-U after 2013

Impose 2.3% excise tax on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices

Raise 7.5% AGI floor on medical expenses deduction to 10%; AGI floor for individuals age 65 and older (and their spouses) remains at 7.5% through 2016

Broaden Medicare Hospital Insurance Tax Base for High-Income Taxpayers – additional HI tax of 0.9% on earned income in excess of $200,000/$250,000 (unindexed), and Unearned Income Medicare Contribution on 3.8% on investment income for taxpayers with AGI in excess of $200,000/$250,000 (unindexed)

Impose Fee on Insured and Self-Insured Health Plans; Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund (expires after 2019)

Provisions going into effect in 2014

Increase by 15.75 percentage points the required corporate estimated tax payments factor for corporations with assets of at least $1 billion for payments due in July, August, and September 2014

Impose annual fee on health insurance providers ($8 billion in 2014, $11.3 billion in 2015 and 2016, $13.9 billion in 2017, $14.3 billion in 2018, and indexed to medical cost growth thereafter); based upon firm’s market share starting in 2013

Excise Tax (i.e., penalty) on Individuals Without Essential Health Benefits Coverage

Excise Tax (i.e., penalty) on Employers Not Providing Health Insurance Coverage to Employees (Shared Responsibility for Employers)

Refundable Tax Credit Providing Premium Assistance for Coverage Under a Qualified Health Plan

Requirement that employers report health insurance coverage

Provisions going into effect in 2018

40% excise tax on health coverage in excess of $10,200/$27,500 (subject to adjustment for unexpected increase in medical costs prior to effective date) and increased thresholds of $1,650/$3,450 for over age 55 retirees or certain high-risk professions, both indexed for inflation by CPI-U plus 1%; adjustment based on age and gender profile of employees; vision and dental excluded from excise tax; levied at insurer level; employer aggregates and issues information return for insurers indicating amount subject to the excise tax; nondeductible

Probability of Filling Out a Perfect Bracket

Kurt Bouwhuis, Mackinac Center Intern

The Wall Street Journal Online hosted an article on the mathematics behind the perfect NCAA men’s college basketball tournament bracket.  Assuming that each game were a true toss-up, the probability of filling one out with 100% accuracy would be one in nine million trillion!

Yes, nine million trillion.

In the real world, with the aid of information, we can increase our chances to about one in 150 million.

Check out the entire article here: http://www.stat.yale.edu/~jay/News/WSJbb.pdf

Robinhood Ethics

This is one of his best – Hot off the press!

I reckon that I’m insufficiently ‘progressive.’

Don
http://www.cafehayek.com/
………………………………….

10 March 2010

Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-VT)
Capitol Hill
Washington, DC  20500

Dear Mr. Sanders:

You accuse Wall Street Journal editorialists of being hypocritical in supporting tax cuts while simultaneously opposing what you call your “modest proposal” to give “a $250 one-time payment [to] seniors struggling to cope with spiraling health-care costs” (Letters, March 10).

I’m tempted to make the consequentialist point that tax cuts are economically justified because they lower artificial obstacles to those who engage in productive activities and, thus, make nearly everyone, rich and poor, wealthier over time.

But I’d rather emphasize an ethical point, namely, taking from Peter that which belongs to Peter is not remotely comparable to giving to Paul that which belongs to Peter.  So it’s not at all hypocritical to oppose robbing Peter while also opposing the forcible transfer of some of Peter’s wealth to Paul.  Instead, it’s called consistency.  And in this case it’s also ethical.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030

San Francisco 1905: Before the Regulators

Cross Posted from the Mises Blog: San Francisco 1905: Before the Regulators — Mises Economics Blog http://blog.mises.org/?p=011744#ixzz0haiJbdAk

Basic Data on Medical Costs

Kurt Bouwhuis, Mackinac Center Intern

CPI – All Urban Consumers: Medical Care Costs (Click to enlarge graph)

Source: From BLS at http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?cu (Check the two medical care boxes and then click retrieve data)

Next, compare this graph with the following timeline provided by PBS, which shows any significant changes in government policy that have traceable effects on the medical care industry: http://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/history.htm

Finally, draw your own conclusion.

Enjoy!