Europeans Do Not Want American-Style Capitalism

The Financial Times reports on a poll showing that Europeans generally want more government intervention and have little desire for an “American-style” capitalist system. At the same time, the Europeans have little faith that they can compete in the modern economy. It is unclear, though, whether they understand that their support for bigger government is a reason why Europe has trouble competing with the rest of the world:

Europeans have little faith that their continent can compete economically with fast-growing Asian countries – but are even more convinced that it should not become more like the US. …multinational corporations are seen by Europeans as more powerful than governments, while those polled generally believed that regulations protecting workers’ rights should be strengthened rather than relaxed. …When asked whether Europe’s economy should be more like that of the US, the results were clear-cut. Those saying it should not, included 78 per cent of Germans, 73 per cent of the French, 58 per cent of the Spanish. In both Italy and the UK, 46 per cent opposed the US model. …Asked if a free-market, capitalist economy was the best system, Spanish and German respondents agreed overall, but the French and Italians did not. The British were less clear, although there was more support than opposition for a “capitalist” system.

The unintentionally amusing (or sad) part of the story is that America does not have an “American-style” capitalist system. The difference between the United States and Europe is that America has a medium-size welfare state while most European nations have large-size welfare states. The difference is not trivial, which is why America is more prosperous, but Europeans have a very distorted view of the United States thanks to ideologically biased information sources such as Michael Moore and CNN International.

Sink This SCHIP

That’s the catchy title of my oped in today’s New York Post:

The State Children’s Health Insurance Program is set to expire on Sept. 30. Unfortunately, neither side in Washington seems to have considered letting this SCHIP die…

Congress could make coverage more affordable simply by letting consumers and employers purchase out-of-state coverage…

Sweeping away those trade barriers would make coverage more affordable without increasing government spending, trapping families in low-wage jobs or increasing prices for private purchasers.

President of Senegal to Speak at Cato

Since becoming the president of Senegal in 2000, Abdoulaye Wade has been one of Africa’s most vocal proponents of liberal economic reforms. As he recently said, “I don’t want money, and I don’t want hand-outs. I want trade agreements….I believe in a liberal economy and have never put much faith in the state-run economy, because it fails….The state should intervene only to create the conditions necessary for the private sector to thrive. I am counting on the private sector, because it is crucial to Senegal’s future.” Join us on September 28 to hear President Wade discuss economic reforms in Senegal and the future of liberalization on the African continent.

Legal Trends in Bioethics

Starting with the fall issue of The Journal of Clinical Ethics, my “Legal Trends in Bioethics” column will be available on the Cato website at time of publication instead of only several months later. That means the information provided will be more up-to-date and relevant for anyone interested in tracking legal issues in bioethics.

For those not familiar with the column, it tracks bioethics related issue through all stages of litigation, legislation, and regulation at both the federal and state levels, as well as occasionally mentioning exceptional legal developments in other countries. The topics covered are not always exactly the same, but usually there are sections on informed consent, abortion, children’s rights, vaccines, organ procurement, HIV, mental illness, medical privacy, unconventional treatment, right-to-die, stem-cell research and other new technologies, among other topics depending on what bioethics topics are of legal concern in the U.S.

The column tries to be comprehensive as far as reporting the most relevant developments at each level of government and in each topic area. It is a very useful tool for doing exactly what its name implies – tracking the “Legal Trends in Bioethics.” The following is the introduction to the fall column which will be published in The Journal Clinical Ethics and simultaneously become available on the Cato website next month:

The most troubling development in this quarter is the extent to which legislators continue to intervene in the patient/physician relationship by trying to regulate the relationship down to the smallest specifics of what is said and done. These developments are a great threat to both physician and patient autonomy, but while there have been many attempts to pass such invasive legislation, at this point, few of such bills have actually made it into law. It will be important to watch the next two issues of Legal Trends if someone is interested in seeing how many of such bills actually do end up as laws.

The issue of medical tourism is not new to bioethics, but it is on the brink of attracting more attention in U.S. courts and legislatures. There is no separate heading in “Legal Trends” for “medical tourism,” but it is important for anyone interested in the subject to regularly check the “Legal Trends’ subheading dealing with interesting developments in other countries. In this issue, for example, some Canadians are seeking a police investigation into an assisted suicide in Switzerland. Physician assisted suicide is legal in Switzerland, but illegal in Canada. At issue is whether Canadians have a legal right under Canadian law to travel to Switzerland to avail themselves of a practice that is illegal in their own country. In the United States there is a constitutional right to travel which would make it legal for the patient seeking physician assisted suicide to go to Switzerland (there is no case directly on point but the basic principle is well-established in U.S. constitutional jurisprudence), but even in the U.S., as in Canada, it may be possible to prosecute someone who assists that person in getting to Switzerland. This could be considered aiding and abetting a suicide. The Canadian suit has not even been filed yet, and no such case exists in the U.S., but it is an interesting issue to watch. It may come up as it did in Canada with respect to traveling to Switzerland where it is legal for physicians to assist foreigners in committing suicide (this is not true in the Netherlands); it is also likely to come up in connection with people suffering from kidney disease traveling to Iran, the only country where it is legal to purchase kidneys, and in other situations where the legality of the activity is not the issue but the price of medical treatment.

The “Legal Trends” from earlier this year are available on the Cato website or directly from The Journal of Clinical Ethics.

Cash-Only House Calls

An article in today’s New York Times provides another example of how, when the patient owns and controls the money involved, entrepreneurs respond with medical services far more convenient and customer-friendly than your typical doctor’s office visit. 

Critics of physician house-call services will argue that such services are great if you have $250 to $450 to spare.  I see these stories and wonder what types of services low-income workers would already have if they had been allowed to own and control all of their health care dollars for the past several decades.

H.T. Bob Budd.

Washington Post’s Popular Programs

Washington Post, September 18: “The Democratic Congress is considering 2008 spending bills that increase funding for politically popular programs….”

Washington Post, September 19: “With a difficult war debate looming and presidential vetoes for a host of popular legislation….”

Washington Post, September 20: “Republicans and Democrats in the [Virginia] General Assembly proposed election-year spending increases for popular programs….”

Notice any pattern? 

The Washington Post is a great paper, but like many papers it reveals a pro-spending bias when it reports on government budget issues. One aspect of this is the common portrayal of any increase or cut as affecting “popular programs.” Every type of program is portrayed as “popular,” whether it provides benefits to 50% of Americans or just 0.05% of Americans.

Presumably, Post reporters don’t do a public poll to find out which programs really are ”popular.” Instead, they just automatically stick the word in stories to perhaps suggest, “Ohhh, policymakers better not cut spending on that one or else there will be hell to pay.”

I’ve noticed this for years in the PostHere’s one on federal grants to local governments: “According to the police group, the most controversial proposals include a $376 million reduction in the popular Community Oriented Policing Services program….”

Washington Post readers sometimes complain that its stories are too wordy. Well, “popular” is one word that editors can look to chop out.