The idea that Obamacare will stimulate the kind of high-impact entrepreneurship of the sort we care most about remains to be proven.
Steven Brill has correctly figured out that Obamacare will not control costs and that taxpayers will be left holding the bag. But he has far too much faith in the ability and willingness of government to tackle runaway entitlements.
In a nation so hyper-vigilant against discrimination, how did we arrive at a world in which smokers are singled out for such exceedingly harsh economic penalties?
Auto safety regulation and Obamacare are the latest illustrations of where we may have focused far too much on the benefits being achieved and much too little attention on the cost side of the ledger.
Yesterday, Jonathan Gruber’s hearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee left several key questions unanswered.
Anyone who has listened to the Gruber tapes has heard Prof. Gruber’s repeated references to the “three-legged stool” that forms the core of Obamacare. However, those who pay close attention to his remarks may have detected that Gruber enthusiastically endorses (and Obamacare contains) a more sinister three-legged stool of deception regarding employer health plans.
Remember this categorical assurance from President Obama? “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits.”
A recent FDA regulation on graphic warning labels for cigarettes has resurrected a huge debate among health economists over whether adult smoking is a rational choice or merely the consequence of an addiction.
Would it be economically and ethically feasible to have employers sponsor health insurance for a mixed, high-risk population? My argument is that accounting for deadweight losses tips the scales back in favor of ESI vs. Medicaid.
Comparing the cost of employer-sponsored insurance to the cost of either Medicare or Medicaid is a completely stacked comparison even if we fully adjust for every iota of age and health status differences between these three populations and use an apples-to-apples comparison of plans having the identical benefits and actuarial value.