• SUPPORT CATO
• FOR STUDENTS
• FOR MEDIA
• FREE NEWSLETTERS

• HOME

• ABOUT

• BLOG

• CATO STORE

• CENTERS & PROJECTS

• EVENTS

• EXPERTS

• MULTIMEDIA

• PUBLICATIONS

Books

Reviews & Journals

Public Filings

Policy Studies

Opinion & Commentary

• RESEARCH AREAS

• SPEAKERS BUREAU

• SUPPORT CATO

• CATO UNBOUND

• DOWNSIZING
  GOVERNMENT.ORG

• ELCATO.ORG

• LIBERTARIANISM.ORG

Cato Dispatch for February 26, 2010

Subscribe to the Cato Dispatch via email

(Links to outside sources were active as of the date of this dispatch; however, not all news sources maintain links to current stories indefinitely. Some links also may require registration.)

Ending the Debate over Health Care

President Obama hosted a bipartisan summit on health care reform on Thursday in a final attempt to find common ground with Republicans on the issue. Little was found. The entire six-hour summit was televised, and Cato scholars offered live commentary at the Cato@Liberty blog.

Cato Senior Fellow Michael D. Tanner writes that in the entire exchange, neither side brought up the real problems with health care:

If President Obama's health care summit showed anything, it is that when it comes to controlling health care costs there is bipartisan agreement in favor of looking for the easy solution. Both sides dragged out the traditional villains, "fraud, waste, and abuse." There was the usual search for silver bullets. Republicans dwelled at length on medical malpractice Democrats talked about pooling and the advantages of comparative shopping through the exchanges. Everyone was in favor of preventive care. But both sides seem curiously unwilling to address the most important participant in the health care equation — the consumer.

Cato Director of Health Policy Studies Michael F. Cannon's solution focuses on empowering consumers:

Letting workers control their health care dollars and tearing down regulatory barriers to competition would control costs, expand choice, improve health care quality, and make health coverage more secure.

Should the Military End "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?

The debate over whether gays and lesbians can openly serve in the military has reignited over the past few weeks, as Pentagon officials and policymakers decide whether the "Don't ask, don't tell policy," enacted by Congress in 1993, should be repealed.

Cato Legal Policy Analyst David Rittgers, who served in the United States Army as an Infantry and Special Forces officer, explains the weaknesses in the case for DADT.

Contrary to the claims of some conservatives, gays can and do serve in the military….The British and Israeli armed forces allow gays to serve openly and still have first-rate combat units. When Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says it is time to repeal DADT and believes that we can do so without compromising readiness, objections based on domestic politics, and not on military grounds, lose a lot of credibility.

Christopher Preble, Cato director of foreign policy studies and Gulf War veteran, says DADT should be judged on how it impacts the effectiveness of the U.S. military:

In all likelihood the commission will support the implementation of the change in policy…. We absolutely have to attract and retain the most qualified people, and we have more than just anecdotal evidence that people who were good at their jobs and were providing mission critical skills were removed from service by virtue of this policy. At the end of the day, that policy undermines our security.

Cato Quick Hits

• Arnold Kling on Haiti, poverty, and capitalism.

• Unionized teachers refuse to work 25 minutes more a day, so Rhode Island town fires all of them.

• Are there loopholes in Obama's ban on torture?

• How the Tea Party movement can prove its authenticity.

Chris Moody, editor, cmoody@cato.org