I think this is because libertarians don't believe in health insurance as a means to help people with health conditions pay their bills.
I would put it this way:
Insurance is a voluntary arrangement where consumers agree to subsidize each other. By definition, sick people have higher medical expenses. Thus, some seek to charge healthy people more than they cost to insure, so that insurers can reduce the premiums they charge to the sick.
There are lots of reasons why healthy people may agree to that. They may be very risk-averse, and so they are willing to pay more than they cost to insure. They may be altruistic, deriving satisfaction from knowing that their higher premiums are making coverage more affordable for others. Or they may precommit to such subsidies before it is known who in the insurance pool will develop a chronic illness (read: guaranteed renewable insurance).
Boston officials investigating this week's marketing campaign gone awry should be sure to include themselves in the scrutiny, asking if they overreacted to the incident.
In case you missed the story, Cartoon Network, a division of Time Warner's Turner Broadcasting, recently launched a "guerrilla marketing campaign" to promote its new adult-audience cartoon Aqua Teen Hunger Force. As part of the campaign, the network hired New York marketing firm Interference Inc. to place notepad-sized, electronically lit signs of the show's "mooninite" characters in unusual locations around urban areas.
The campaign received little notice in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Philadelphia, and Austin, Texas. But in Boston, public officials treated the signs as a possible terrorist threat, closing bridges, subway stations, roadways, and even part of the Charles River while bomb squads removed the signs.
Once the nature of the signs became known, Boston mayor Thomas Menino issued a press release blasting the campaign:
It is outrageous, in a post-9/11 world, that a company would use this type of marketing scheme. I am prepared to take any and all legal action against Turner Broadcasting and its affiliates for any and all expenses incurred during the response to today’s incidents.Read the rest of this post »
The big news on the defense and foreign policy front is the release earlier today of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq, an unclassified summary of which is now available online (.pdf). Congressional staff are poring over a much longer (90-page), classified version. President Bush was presented with a copy of the full report yesterday.
National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley discussed the NIE with reporters, characterizing the report as "a good statement about the risks if we do not succeed in Iraq, for Iraqis, for the region, and for Americans here at home." (Count this as Exhibit A for the defense.)
Bloggers immediately pounced on the report to make the counterpoint, namely that the Bush administration's escalation plan — by the NIE's own admission — couldn't possibly work (Exhibit B for the prosecution).
The near-instantaneous interpretation of a key intelligence assessment is hardly a new phenomenon. As I explain in my book John F. Kennedy and the Missile Gap, the selective leaking and politically motivated interpretation of intelligence muddied the water on the nature of the Soviet threat in the late 1950s. (A more digestible paper I wrote for the Princeton Project on National Security that discusses these 1950s-era debates, as well as a discussion of the "Team B" controversy of the 1970s, can be found here.)
The response to the latest Iraq NIE fits a similar pattern. Each side is fixing on a few relevant passages to prove its case or, failing that, to engender doubt about the other side's arguments.
A couple of hours ago, the Utah House of Representatives passed the nation’s first universal school voucher bill (HB 148) in a nail‐biting 38–37 vote. From what I hear coming out of Utah, it’s going to pass the Senate next week as well, and be signed by the governor.
If it is signed into law, it will be an unprecedented step forward for educational freedom in this country. The media, as well as school choice advocates and critics, will be watching Utah intently to see what happens, and there are some caveats that I think are very important for everyone to keep in mind.
First, dramatic results should not be expected overnight. In other nations that have adopted similar school choice programs (e.g., Chile, Sweden), it has taken five or 10 years for large numbers of new schools to be created, and for the good ones to be weeded out from the bad. Competition and consumer choice work wonderfully well in education, but their effects are not instantaneous. Part of the reason for that lag is that potential school founders have to be convinced that a newly passed school choice law is on firm legal and political ground, and not likely to be overturned by the courts or repealed by a subsequent legislature. And you can bet this law will be challenged.
Second, the maximum value of Utah’s school vouchers would be $3,000, only about half of what Utah spends per pupil in its public schools. So Bill 148 would still leave private schools at a considerable financial disadvantage compared to their state‐run counterparts, and that would inhibit competition between the public and private sectors and retard innovation.
Those caveats aside, this is a momentous day not just for Utah families, but for our entire nation. What Utah’s legislature has figured out is that school choice is a much better way of fulfilling the promise of public education than is the one‐size‐fits‐all factory school system we inherited from the 19th century.
A guy sits down to watch the World Series, drink beer, and clean his World War II‐era firearms. A quiet, relaxing evening in his own home. He could not fathom that the “Mobile Emergency Response Group and Equipment Team” would soon be on the scene to “neutralize the threat” he is posing to the community. The “Team” forces him out of his apartment with flash bang grenades, chemical gas canisters, and rubber bullets.
The details are set forth in this recent judicial ruling.
Yet another example of the disturbing militaristic mind‐set that pervades too many of our police agencies. Unnecessary provocation and violence. Unfortunately, the judiciary essentially approves, even lauds, the police work, but nevertheless issues a tiny $1 rebuke because the agents failed to obtain an arrest warrant during this “standoff.”
Now the city has a budget of $3 billion, but it decides to appeal instead of paying out a measly four quarters. From the point of view of the government attorneys, it was apparently crucial to spend who‐knows‐how‐many‐taxpayer‐dollars to defend police power and to keep the warrant requirement precedent off the books.
The Constitution is supposed to be “the supreme law of the land,” but consider how much regard the police showed to the right to keep and bear arms and the right to be secure in our homes against unreasonable searches and seizures. Anyone who thinks this is an “isolated incident” should study this, this, and this.
The commissioners of the European Union endlessly preach about the need for carbon taxes and costly regulations that will reduce the quality of life for regular people. But those same commissioners get driven around in low‐mileage vehicles. Fortunately, they are getting attacked for this hypocritical attitude.
Sadly, the embarrassment will have little impact. American politicians — including President Bush — want to force Americans into smaller (and more dangerous) cars, yet periodic efforts to require them to live by the same rules have proved fruitless.
The EU Observer reports on the controversy in Brussels:
EU commissioners are finding themselves under scrutiny to see if they are putting into practice the green values that Brussels is increasingly preaching, with most of the 120‐strong fleet of officials cars comprising gas‐guzzling, C02‐emitting giants.
…[T]he vast majority of the 27 commissioners use the standard‐issue vehicles such as Audis or Mercedes — high on security features but rather lower on environment friendliness — to be ferried here and there across Brussels; sometimes even the few hundred metres between commission buildings.
…A commission spokesperson said, “It’s an individual decision for commissioners what their service car should be but as a general rule, the commissioners choose cars that are functional and safe for what they are doing.”
Although it is opposed by the usual special interest groups, Utah lawmakers are moving forward with a school choice plan. Since Utah recently enacted a flat tax, there apparently is a real commitment to reform. The Wall Street Journal reports:
The voucher bill passed out of committee earlier this week and is backed by Governor Jon Huntsman. It would offer students who attend private K-12 schools from $500 to $3,000 in tuition reimbursement based on family income.
While Utah is known for its Mormon population, the biggest winners under the plan would be the state’s growing Hispanic population, who haven’t done well in general in Utah public schools.
As usual, local school boards and the state teachers union (the Utah Education Association) are fighting the idea, claiming that it will “drain” money from public schools. This hardly seems likely because the $9 million cost of the program is about 0.5% of total school spending. And the voucher maximum of $3,000 is less than half the state per child public‐school spending average of $6,325. The voucher bill also allows Utah public schools to keep the difference between the voucher amount paid out to students who leave and the $6,325 per pupil average.
Vouchers are working in a handful of cities, such as Cleveland, Milwaukee, and Washington, D.C. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush also promoted a statewide plan, until a liberal state court invented constitutional objections.
The evidence on student performance has mostly been favorable in these schools, and research by Harvard economist Carolyn Hoxby has found that the presence of vouchers has caused the public schools to improve their performance as well.