So screams the headline of John Cochrane’s oped in today’s Investor’s Business Daily. An excerpt:
Markets can provide long‐term, secure health insurance while enhancing choice and competition. Given the chance, they will…
This is not pie in the sky. The market for individual health insurance is already innovating to provide better long‐term insurance. Well before it was required by law, insurance companies started offering “guaranteed renewable” policies.
Once you buy in, you have the right to continue coverage even if you get sick, and your premiums do not rise if you get sick.
UnitedHealth Group recently announced a product that gives customers the right to buy medical insurance in the future, at a premium that depends only on their current health status.
For a small premium, you can protect yourself against the risk that your health premiums will escalate. This is only a small step away from full health‐status insurance.
The oped is based on Cochrane’s recent Cato policy analysis, “Health‐Status Insurance: How Markets Can Provide Health Security.”
You can also hear Cochrane and Johns Hopkins University health economist Brad Herring discussing health‐status insurance at this Cato policy forum, held today.
This morning I attended a federal student aid event at the New America Foundation. The big topic? Not the effect of aid on out‐of‐control college prices, by far the most important concern from the contexts of economic growth, affordability, fairness to taxpayers, etc. No, it was the Obama Administration’s “bold” (NAF’s word) proposal to kill the federal guaranteed student loan program and do all lending directly from Washington. It was just the kind of debate folks in DC love, one that sounds really important but leaves the government‐created problem almost totally untouched.
Here’s the critical reality that was completely ignored: taxpayer‐furnished financial aid – whether coming directly from DC or delivered by “private” institutions completely backed by DC – appears to be a very big enabler of rampant tuition inflation. Quite simply, as I lay out in the most recent Cato Handbook for Policy, when government ensures that customers can pay more, students demand more and colleges raise prices.
Of course, the argument that aid drives prices is not without its critics, but they’ve got a tough case to make both in terms of economic theory and college cost reality. In Washington, however, this isn’t even being discussed. In DC, it’s all about the deck chairs and nothing about the sinking ship. But then, as we’ve learned oh‐so‐clearly over the last several months, politicians gain little from averting disasters they’ve helped cause, and lots from handing out life jackets.
Fortunately, Cato is here to remind politicians about the important stuff, not just to bicker over which special interest gets the biggest tax‐dollar windfall. On April 7 we will address the fundamental problems with student aid, hosting a Capitol Hill Briefing on the effects not just of switching from guaranteed lending to direct lending, but of all federal student aid. It’ll be just the kind of discussion Washington so desperately needs but so rarely has.
Register here to attend, or watch online the day of the event.
Today the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the resolution Congress passed in 1993 to apologize for U.S. involvement in the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy—a determination that remains controversial among historians—did not affect Hawaii’s sovereign authority to sell or transfer the lands that the United States had granted to the State at the time of its admission to the Union. In an opinion by Justice Alito, the Court correctly explained that the words of the Apology Resolution were conciliatory and hortatory, creating no substantive rights—and indeed the resolution’s operative clauses differ starkly from those which provided compensation to, for example, the Japanese‐Americans interned during World War II.
Importantly, the Court also noted that it would “raise grave constitutional concerns” if any act of Congress purported to cloud Hawaii’s title to sovereign lands so long after its admission to the Union. This last point is perhaps most important to the ongoing debate over the “Akaka Bill,” which would create a race‐based entity to extract political and economic concessions from the state and federal governments on behalf of ill‐defined “native Hawaiians.” It is delicious irony that Hawaii’s attorney general, Mark Bennett, an Akaka Bill supporter, secured this victory.
Just as Hawaii is now allowed to develop state lands for the benefit of all its citizens, hopefully Congress will in future refrain from inflaming racial divisions and instead treat all Hawaiians, regardless of race, with the legal equality to which they are entitled.
Further Cato materials on the above: Here’s our brief in the case, Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Here are articles I wrote on the case and on the on the Akaka Bill. Here is a write‐up of a debate I had at the University of Hawaii last month. Finally, here is a podcast I did for the Grassroot Institute (Hawaii’s free‐market think tank) — where, among other things, I correctly predicted the Court’s vote today and the scope of its opinion.
Washingtonpost.com collected and posted sundry opinions about Rick Wagoner’s dismissal as GM CEO yesterday. Those opinions, including mine, are posted here. But to spare you the click, here’s what I wrote:
President Obama’s newly discovered prudence with taxpayer money and his tough‐love approach to GM and Chrysler would both have more credibility if he hadn’t demanded Rick Wagoner’s resignation, as well. By imposing operational conditions normally reserved for boards of directors, the administration is now bound to the infamous “Pottery Barn” rule: you break it, you buy it. If things go further south, the government is now complicit.
It also means that Wagoner was perceived as an obstacle to whatever plans the administration has for GM. And that’s the real source of concern. If getting these companies back on their feet is the objective, a bankruptcy judge can make a determination pretty quickly about the viability of the firms and the steps necessary to get there. But if the objective is something more grandiose, such as transforming the industry into a model of green production, government oversight and close scrutiny of operations will be necessary. CEOs must be compliant and pliant. It is worth noting that a return to profitability and the metamorphosis of the industry according to a government script work at cross purposes.
The South Carolina NAACP is among the most strident opponents of a new education tax credit proposal in that state that would make it easier for families — especially poor families — to choose private schools for their kids.
But the NAACP’s national platform states that:
The NAACP is a leading advocate of equal access to quality education. In an effort to promote and ensure education opportunities for minority youth, the NAACP offers the following national scholarships: Earl G. Graves Scholarship, Agnes Jones Scholarship, .… These awards help eliminate financial difficulties that may hinder students’ education goals.
Doesn’t that put the SC NAACP’s position into clear conflict with its parent organization? Actually, no. I deleted the qualifier “higher” before the word “education” in the block quote above. The NAACP strongly supports scholarships for poor kids to attend private schools, so long as the kids are over 18 or so.
A few years ago I debated this bizarre inconsistency with a very candid and pleasant NAACP representative, and his response boiled down to this: “I lived through the Jim Crow South and I don’t trust a bunch of white Republicans to have our best interests in mind.” Fair enough. We shouldn’t trust politicians of any stripe to have the public’s interests in mind on any issue. We should instead look at what actually works best both here and around the world, and do that.
From the largest shanty town in Africa, to the slums of Hyderabad, India, to the remote rural villages of in‐land China, the poor are already choosing private schools in vast numbers. And those schools are significantly outperforming their public sector counterparts at a fraction of the cost. Their stories are told in The Beautiful Tree, a compelling new narrative non‐fiction book by scholar and world‐traveler James Tooley. Cato is launching the book at noon on April 15th at our DC headquarters. I hope someone from the NAACP will attend.
Oh, and in case it matters to anyone, the lead advocate of SC’s tax credit school choice program is state senator Robert Ford, an African American Democrat. For some reason the NAACP still opposes it.
The violence ripping across Afghanistan will not be stopped unless the problems in nuclear armed Pakistan are addressed, says Cato scholar Malou Innocent, who traveled to Pakistan late last year.
In a new Cato video, Innocent explains what the United States can do to protect its interests and return stability to the region.
Her forthcoming paper, “Pakistan and the Future of U.S. Policy” will be released next month.
As of this writing, 13 states have passed legislation legalizing medical marijuana. President Obama’s pledge to stop raiding medical marijuana facilities was met with praise from opponents of the drug war, but what does it mean for the future of drug policy?
In Monday’s Cato Daily Podcast, Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project, explains his organization’s goals and strategies for ending marijuana prohibition in the United States.
Our society is not quite ready yet to completely end marijuana prohibition. So what we want to do is keep as many people from being arrested and put in jail as possible in the short run. One way of doing that is to legalize medical marijuana state by state.
Kampia spoke at a policy forum on medical marijuana at the Cato Institute in March.