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 J. Scott Ballenger, Partner, Latham & Watkins; Ezekiel J. Emanuel, Chair, Department of Clinical Bioethics, National Institutes of Health; and Michael F. Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies, Cato Institute.
In Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs v. Eschenbach, terminally ill patients won an impressive victory before a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. That panel ruled that when the government prevents terminally ill patients from accessing experimental drug treatments, it violates those patients’ constitutionally protected right to save their own lives. On appeal, however, an en banc opinion from the D.C. Circuit overturned the panel opinion, setting the stage for an appeal to the Supreme Court. Please join Michael F. Cannon, the Cato Institute’s director of health policy studies; Scott Ballenger, lead counsel for the Abigail Alliance; and Ezekiel Emanuel, a leading critic of the Abigail Alliance’s case as they discuss the economics, ethics, and constitutionality of allowing the state to stand between dying patients and unproven therapies.