Health Care for America

At some point, I'd like to blog about health care reform in America. Oh, you know, that very simple subject that can easily be blogged about in one tiny entry. Specifically, I'd like to evaluate
Prof. Jacob Hacker's Health Care for America proposal, which we are discussing in my health care class.

Of course, per usual, this super Left class does not really present the other side to the story, so I went and pulled up the Heritage Foundation's criticisms of the proposal. Pretty standard Republican retorts, all in all.

Except that I find that more and more, I agree with them. Except I still think we should go to a national health insurance system. Very very weird.

I'd love to write about why, except... I should really finish my reading for class tomorrow first...

Oh, but I'd like to note that I find this blog's very rosy depiction of Taiwan's National Health Insurance program quite intriguing. It certainly accords with many of my dad's boasts about the system. Another similar view, with more air-time to the system's ills: here.

[update] WSJ criticizes the public health plan option here.

Amnesty

I'm impressed with this WSJ article and the author's take on illegal immigration and the distraction of the "amnesty" debate.

XY comment: While I'm right of center, I agree with that article. Having more open borders would alleviate the flow of illegal immigrants which is the long-term problem. However, I disagree with the idea that the illegal immigrants already in the country is a `self-correcting' problem. The fact remains that they circumvented the laws and rules of our country and that has to be dealt with. This is a belief in justice and the rule of law that is separate from economic arguments. Personally I'm not sure amnesty is the right solution and maybe there should be some penalty to illegally residing in the country. No - this is not a crime on the level of murder or fraud, but it remains a crime.

The Effectiveness of Foreign Aid

I keep meaning to read Jeffrey Sachs' The End of Poverty, William Easterly's White Man's Burden: Why the West's Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill, and Paul Collier's The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries Are Failing and What Can Be Done About It. Or other books that address the issue of international poverty and foreign aid. But I still haven't gotten around to it.

I still find the question interesting, though. Is foreign aid effective?

This WSJ article comes down on the Easterly side of things (arguing no). Jury's still out!

The 90% Tax

Perspective on the legality of the 90% tax on $250k+ salaries for TARP recipients:

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/03/18/would-an-aig-bonus-tax-pass-constitutional-muster-a-tribe-calls-yes/

Larry Tribe says the AIG bonus tax is not unconstitutional.

Executive Bonuses

Obama: AIG Bonuses an 'Outrage' to Taxpayers - Am I the only person who thinks people are irrationally freaking out about this? I guess I can see where taxpayers are coming from - they see their money going to this giant company, and going toward executive pay, at a time when their own paychecks are dwindling. The populist in me shares that theoretical outrage.

But look, there's such a thing as a contract. And usually, when you breach contracts, there are consequences (i.e. lawsuits). I'm guessing AIG has already broken as many contracts as it has found it efficient to breach, and that these last $165 million in bonuses were what they calculated to be the necessary payoff to avoid more than $165 million in lawsuits. If this is the case, I don't see any problem with paying out these executive bonuses... except that now the country - and its president - is in uproar about it.

GM and Bankruptcy

Excellent op-ed in the WSJ today: GM's Plan: Subsidize our 48 Year Old Retirees. Ultimately, the author argues that GM et al. should be filing for bankruptcy. I think I agree. I really liked the article in that it wasn't quick to blame anyone - despite its title, it doesn't just slam GM, or UAW:

So why were these problems allowed to fester, when smart people recognized them
all along? The answer is that the solutions were painful, requiring not just
brains but considerable amounts of courage.

A bankruptcy filing may even be a way for the major actors to avoid the political fallout for What Must Be Done. Both the companies and the union can hide behind the Bankruptcy Court and say 'they ordered me to' when their constituents come hollerin'.

I just thought it was awesome that this article combines my bankruptcy class with the journal article I am editing on retiree health benefits.

[XY Comment]: I think that letting GM go bankrupt would be unambiguously correct if there weren't so many other problems in the economy. It's definitely a blackhole for taxpayer money right now and represents transfers from the taxpaying base to the employees and shareholders of GM. While I sympathize with the employees of GM, I think there are people in worse conditions. Using taxpayer money directly for the unemployed would seem to be fairer and a better use of resources.

A lot of losses in the economy are real but they have already hit (see stock market down to a 6 year low). There are multiple equilibria for the market and if everyone thinks it's going down, it's gonna go down. If people think it'll steady out and start spending again, then it will steady out. The worry is that letting GM fail means that people will believe the former rather than the latter.

Not Cheap Talk

Check out this mayor - who definitely took unusual measures to back up his talk on lowering crime.

The best is his final quote: "We have some issues that are much bigger than the Constitution."