Though the health care is yet unavailable, the first taxes of the Health Care Reform Bill are beginning to take effect. For instance, Michiganders now face a 10% tax on tanning. This will increase prices and some have worried that it will result in salons closing, leaving even more people unemployed.
The resoning behind this tanning tax is that studies seem to show that indoor tanning almost doubles the risk of melanoma, though the VP of International Smart Tan Network says that it is a gross oversimplication that tanning should be stopped because of this possibility. He also holds that one of the causes for this tax as opposed to another option of taxing botox (which would not have as much of an impact on the middle class) was lobbying done behind closed doors.
I personally do not tan, but I do enjoy having the freedom to tan at will without extra taxes because it might harm my health. It is my job to be responsible in how I treat my body and I will suffer the consequences if I abuse it. It is not the job of the government to try to limit my freedom and possibly cause negative effects on the owners and patrons of any business, including tanning salons.
Tag Archives: healthcare
A Political Romance
Here is a letter I recently sent to the Midland Daily News:
Imagine the excitement of wealthy health industry executives as they watch the progression of the healthcare bill through the political system. These executives have been paying lobbyists large sums of money in an attempt to pass healthcare reform and it’s all about to pay off. If the bill passes, it will require every single American to have health insurance resulting in a large increase in the demand for their health services.
An even larger increase in demand will result from a lack of rationing from the consumers. Under healthcare reform, consumers will have access to as many healthcare services as they can get their hands on at no additional costs to themselves. To top it off, a credible third party with deep pockets (government) will pick up the tab for all additional expenses. In short, health reform will offer guaranteed payments and increased revenues to already wealthy individuals working within the healthcare industry.
Some may read the paragraphs above and say that I have it all wrong; healthcare is a human right and the reform is all about helping those who are not fortunate enough to provide for themselves. If this is the thought passing through your mind, you are likely an extremely kind hearted individual who is unknowingly endorsing the plans of special interests. In order to understand why this is true, it is important to be able to distinguish between the actual political process and the theatrical performances that follow.
The actual political process goes something like this – Special interests have a strong desire to extract money from the public purse. Unfortunately, extracting money from the public purse is a tricky process – No one ever approaches the government and says “I need $1 million dollars because I’m a good person and I deserve it.” Besides, special interests are much too sophisticated for such a request. Instead, they pay lobbyists and politicians (through campaign contributions) to ask for the same thing in a slightly different way. As soon as the payments have been made, the theatrical performances ensue. All of a sudden, lobbyists and politicians are saying “We need to pass bill X to protect the middle class.” What remains unmentioned is the $1 million that ends up in the pockets of special interests as a result of bill X.
The benefits of bill X are then mentioned in the media which excites regular citizens, causing a few of them to become activists. These activists are generally the kind hearted individuals mentioned earlier who unknowingly become the frontmen for special interests. The activists then go out on the streets and inform other people of the bill’s merits. Once the bill passes into law, the special interests pocket a portion of the loot for themselves and distribute the remainder to the political party and politicians who helped pass the bill. When another opportunity presents itself, a portion of the loot is spent to hire more lobbyists to begin yet another cycle.
This cycle will continue until the public at large stops romanticizing over the theatrical performances of politicians and realize what actually happens within the political system. With this knowledge, the endorsement of healthcare reform by several prominent politicians will be “no more surprising than that a hog would gorge itself when presented with a trough of food and be about as appetizing to watch.”*
Kurt Bouwhuis
*Andrew P. Morriss, Letter to the Financial Times, Oct. 14, 2008.
Unfathomable Mindset
Kurt Bouwhuis, Mackinac Center Intern
Here is a letter Don Boudreaux recently sent to the Baltimore Sun:
Don
http://www.cafehayek.com/
http://marketcorrection.powerblogs.com/
…………………………
24 November 2009
Editor, Baltimore Sun
Dear Editor:
You are right to warn against politics infecting health-care decisions (“Medicine trumps politics,” Nov. 24).
But you are also unreasonable to do so. Yours is among the most strident voices in support of Obamacare. To demand more government-enforced and financed health-care arrangements AND to decry the politics that arises in response to this government intervention is like demanding government-enforced and financed free love AND decrying the unwanted pregnancies and STDs that would arise in response.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030
Market “Impossibilities”
Here is a letter I recently sent to the Lansing State Journal:
In his recent letter, James W. Perkins claims that “The health-care system does not belong in the free enterprise arena, where one checks prices, then decides to buy or not to buy because the item can be done without. With health care, not treating the condition can lead to worse health or death – that’s not a free enterprise decision. Leaving crucial, desperate, life or death health concerns in the hands of those who are in profit making businesses is not wise” (“Market can’t run health,” November 25).
Changing a few words in his statement revels why such a statement is faulty. “Growing food does not belong in the free enterprise arena, where one checks prices, then decides to buy or not to buy because the item can be done without. With the food industry, not eating can lead to worse health or death – that’s not a free enterprise decision. Leaving crucial, desperate, life or death health concerns in the hands of those who are in profit making businesses is not wise.”
Kurt Bouwhuis
Sloppy Krugman
Here’s a letter Don Boudreaux sent to the New York Times:
And these data ignore the fact that Massachusetts’s plan relies in part on subsidies from Uncle Sam.
Don
http://www.cafehayek.com/
http://marketcorrection.powerblogs.com/
…………..
24 July 2009
Editor, The New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
To the Editor:
I’m surprised that Paul Krugman points to Massachusetts’s three-year-old program for creating universal health-insurance coverage in that state as a model for the national level (“Costs and Compassion,” July 24). Krugman himself admits – in a column devoted to insisting that such government plans will reduce health-care costs – that Massachusetts “is now looking for ways to help control costs.” If Massachusetts’s experience is Mr. Krugman’s best real-world case for how such reform itself controls costs, why are legislators in that state “now looking” – three years later – “for ways to help control costs”?
But control costs they must. A 2008 Kaiser Family Foundation study of this Massachusetts reform finds that “the costs for this program have exceeded previous estimates. The Governor’s budget request of $869 million for 2009 is about $400 million more than that for 2008, and it is believed that this funding level may still fall short.”* And just last month, Cato Institute scholar Michael Tanner reported that “since the program became law, insurance premiums have been increasing by 10 to 12 percent per year, nearly double the national average. On average, health insurance costs $16,897 a year for a family of four in Massachusetts, compared to $12,700 nationally. Meanwhile, total health-care spending in the state has increased by 28 percent.”**
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030
A personal tale of health care US vs. UK
–Lauren M. Ruhland, 2008 MCPP intern & Science Editor
Brinley Bruton describe her own very different experiences with two bouts of pyelonephritis (advanced kidney infection), each taking place on different sides of the Atlantic Ocean. Though it seems obvious that she preferred the care she received in the U.S., she’s still willing to see its faults for what they are and offers praise for the compassion and professionalism of her health care providers in the U.K. The piece is a long two pages and doesn’t wade particularly far into the policy debate surrounding health care, but it does raise some important questions about the consequences of health care reforms.
[W]hile I recovered fully in both cases, the care I received felt quite different. In New York, I never feared that I would be overlooked. At my doctor’s office in upscale Gramercy Park, he and his nurses took their time seeing me, and were always at pains to reassure me. On my first visit, the receptionist let me sit in an empty consulting room so that I wouldn’t have to weep in the waiting room. She checked in on me and brought me water.
But unlike the personal care I received in the U.S., in London, I felt like I was on a vast and often creaking conveyor belt, and there was a big risk of falling through the cracks. British care is socialized — and feels that way.