Obesity remains a serious health problem and it is no secret that many people want to lose weight. Behavioral economists typically argue that “nudges” help individuals with various decisionmaking flaws to live longer, healthier, and better lives. In an article in the new issue of Regulation, Michael L. Marlow discusses how nudging by government differs from nudging by markets, and explains why market nudging is the more promising avenue for helping citizens to lose weight.
In Bootleggers & Baptists: How Economic Forces and Moral Persuasion Interact to Shape Regulatory Politics, economists Bruce Yandle and Adam Smith explain how money and morality are often combined in politics to produce arbitrary regulations benefiting cronies, while constraining productive economic activities by the general public.
Featuring Kent Masterson Brown, Lead attorney, Hall v. Sebelius; and Michael F. Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies, Cato Institute, and co-author of Healthy Competition: What’s Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It.
Supporters claim a new “government option” would compete on a level playing field with private health insurance. But a new lawsuit belies that claim. Since 1993, the Social Security Administration has effectively coerced seniors into enrolling in Medicare by decreeing that those who opt out of Medicare for private insurance must forfeit all Social Security benefits, past and future. Last month, a federal court acknowledged that federal law requires no such thing and that SSA conjured that requirement out of thin air “without public notice and comment.” Kent Masterson Brown and Michael F. Cannon will explain the relevance of Hall v. Sebelius to today’s health reform debate.