Then there are work rules. “In the collective bargaining agreement, high school teachers only had to teach five periods a day, out of seven,” says Arnoldussen. “Now, they’re going to teach six.” In addition, the collective bargaining agreement specified that teachers had to be in the school 37 1/2 hours a week. Now, it will be 40 hours.

The changes mean Kaukauna can reduce the size of its classes — from 31 students to 26 students in high school and from 26 students to 23 students in elementary school. In addition, there will be more teacher time for one-on-one sessions with troubled students. Those changes would not have been possible without the much-maligned changes in collective bargaining.

Teachers’ salaries will stay “relatively the same,” Arnoldussen says, except for higher pension and health care payments. (The top salary is around $80,000 per year, with about $35,000 in additional benefits, for 184 days of work per year — summers off.) Finally, the money saved will be used to hire a few more teachers and institute merit pay.

Visit This Link →

Mr. Frank, Rep. Ron Paul (R., Texas) and others will make the bill’s language public Thursday. It would be the first bill of its kind ever introduced in Congress, the release said.

“The legislation would limit the federal government’s role in marijuana enforcement to cross-border or inter-state smuggling, allowing people to legally grow, use or sell marijuana in states where it is legal,” the release said.

“This is not a legalization bill,” a spokesman for Mr. Frank said.

More than a dozen states have laws that allow the sale of marijuana for medical use, but the practice isn’t legal under federal law, and federal authorities have raided marijuana dispensaries.

Visit This Link →

Visit This Link →

First he illustrates that today’s rich pay more in taxes than the rich of 1955 did. (They pay more in real dollar terms, even if they do pay less in percentage terms.) Then he cuts to the core of the moral argument.

If the principle is that the rich should pay higher taxes because they can more easily bear the rates, then we should keep raising tax rates until the rich can no longer bear them—until, that is, they’re no longer rich. One need not be rich to find this prospect disquieting. A government that can take whatever it wants strikes a lot of people as unfair, and unfree.

He also points out that (many) blue states are net federal taxpayers while (many) red states are net federal tax recipients because “states with wealthier residents pay higher federal taxes per capita thanks to the progressive structure of the income tax”. If you don’t like the idea of states subsidizing each others’ residents, you need to scale back (or eliminate) the progressivity of the federal income tax.

I like this welfare reform idea too.

Buckley would confine eligibility for [Federal] welfare state programs to Americans living in states whose median income was below the national average. Because Buckley thought it was economically and politically debilitating to “turn the skies black with criss-crossing dollars,” his reform would ground a lot of those dollars. Federal welfare expenditures would shrink, as the number of people eligible for them was limited, and prosperous states would pay for their own welfare programs without the transit and administrative fees of sending them on to Washington and then back to the states.

This reform would do much to take power away from Washington, D.C.

Only the poorest states would receive moneys from Washington. The more well to do states would spend their own money on welfare programs. Of course, they do that today too. But right now, that money goes through Washington (in the form of federal income taxes), where policitians get to attach rules and conditions to it, before sending it back to the states (as Medicaid payments or transportation funds or something else). If this reform were implemented, policitians would have many fewer opportunities to meddle and states would have a much greater freedom of action. That’s what I call a win-win scenario.

Visit This Link →

Visit This Link →

Being uninsured is like being unemployed. It happens to lots of people for short periods of time. Of all the people who are uninsured at a point in time, more than half will obtain insurance within 12 months and 90% will be insured within two years. So if you want to argue that being eligible for Medicaid is better than being uninsured for most people you have to have a theory that says that extending Medicaid to the temporarily uninsured saves lives.

It gets worse. Since Medicaid eligibility is conditional on income, people become eligible and ineligible as their incomes rise and fall. So like uninsurance, Medicaid eligibility also is a condition that affects a lot of people for short periods of time.

So now you need a theory that says that temporary enrollment in Medicaid for the otherwise temporarily uninsured adds to life expectancy. I know of no studies that test this proposition.

He then points out that, even if this is true, it’s the exact opposite of what Obamacare does. Obamacare uses tax data (that can be up to two years out of date) to decide whether or not you can purchase health insurance on an exchange or whether you have to go on Medicare.

So what kind of reform would you want if you believe that temporary uninsurance is bad for health and continuous insurance is good? Obviously, you wouldn’t want to enroll people in a plan where eligibility changes every time family income bobs up and down. You would instead want to encourage plans that cover people for long periods of time. The help (subsidy) you make available can bob up and down as income changes — but enrollment shouldn’t follow the same rollercoaster. The subsidy may be income dependent, but enrollment should not be.

Ideal health insurance actually would not include Medicaid at all. It would involve people enrolling in private plans that are portable, and travel with them from job to job. And this result is consistent with other research. For although there is some argument about how much difference health insurance makes, almost every study finds that private insurance is better than Medicaid.

Obamacare delenda est. Because it really is a bad way to solve the problem of health insurance.

They shouldn’t. It’s a bad bill.

One of the biggest problems with food safety is that different agencies are responsible for different parts of the food supply.

In the case of the Wright County Egg salmonella outbreak which resulted in the recall of half a billion eggs earlier this year, the USDA was aware of problems such as dirt and mold in the Iowa facility. But the USDA did not notify the FDA, which has overall authority.

Moreover, the regulatory responsibilities often overlap, leaving agencies unsure who is in charge of what. As an example, Coburn pointed to frozen pizza:

Do my colleagues realize right now when we buy a pizza at the grocery store, if you buy a cheese pizza it comes through the FDA, but if you buy a pepperoni pizza, it gets approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture? How many people in America think that makes sense?

This bill does nothing to change that. It should be rejected on that basis alone.

Second, food safety just isn’t that big of a problem.

Indeed, according to the Centers for Disease Control, no more than three-thousandths of one percent of food-borne illnesses are fatal in the United States.

Senator Tom Coburn remarked on that as well.

We could spend $100 billion additionally every year and not make food absolutely safe. There are diminishing returns to the dollars we spend. But if you look at what the case is: In 1996, for every 100,000 people in this country, we had 51.2 cases of food-borne illness — the best in the world, by far. Nobody comes close to us in terms of the safety of our food . But, in 2009, we only had 34.8 cases — three times better than anybody else in the world. So the question has to be asked: Why are we doing this now when, in fact, we are on a trendline to markedly decrease it?

Third, this bill will be expensive.

The legislation will cost $1.4 billion over 5 years. This cost does not include an additional $230 million in expenditures that are directly offset by fees collected for those activities (re-inspections, mandatory recalls, etc.). The total cost of the bill is over $1.6 billion over 5 years. Of these costs, $335 million are for non-FDA programs – the food allergy grant program, implementation grants to assist producers, assistance grants to states and Indian Tribes.

Fourth, this bill gives the FDA new powers that it doesn’t need and that it will probably abuse.

Most worrisome is the fact the bill as it currently is written would give the FDA the authority to require mandatory recalls of tainted food.

At first blush this seems reasonable, but the current system of voluntary recalls already resulted in a $100 million loss to tomato growers in the U.S. when a salmonella outbreak caused the FDA to recommend a recall. It turned out the problem was not tomatoes but jalapeno peppers, but by the time the real culprit was discovered the damage was already done.

Hart points out that bureaucrats with the power to order recalls would be very likely to jump the gun and order a huge recall before all the facts are in. Worse, it would precipitate a fight between the industry and regulators, who currently have a fairly good working relationship.

Coburn noted in his address that inspectors do not need the authority to order recalls

Why don’t they need that authority? Because if you have a problem with your product in the food system in this country, you are going to get sued. You are going to get fined if you do not recall that product.

“You’re going to see (inspectors) pull the trigger prematurely,” Hart said, noting bureaucrats tend to be more worried about doing what’s safe in terms of their jobs rather than what’s right.

This is a bad bill. Rather than modernizing the food safety responsibilities of the federal government, it leaves authority split between more than 30 different agencies. It directly raises costs to small farms and producers. It gives the FDA a large incentive to order damaging recalls with no incentive to protect farmers from hysteria. Finally, it just isn’t needed. America’s food supply is already the safest in the world. Spending more money won’t create any noticeable increase in food safety, only an increase in the price of our food.

For the good of the nation, the House should reject this flawed bill and President Obama should refuse to sign it.

(Note: The House was originally expected to pass the bill easily but now may not be able to, as the bill infringes on the House’s constitutional rights. The Constitution states that all bills for raising revenue must originate in the House. This bill raises revenue and originated in the Senate. Oops.)

Middle-class families need health insurance to protect themselves from the financial devastation of a catastrophic illness. But many (arguably, almost all) of the most serious defects of the health care system are created by third-party payment of medical bills.

After 5 years of supporting the billing departments of different healthcare organizations (and using my own healthcare), I’ve come to agree. Increasingly, I want the choice to spend my own healthcare dollars with the doctor of my choice, for the services of my choice, without having to get approval from an insurance company first.

I truly believe that the lack of competition in our current healthcare system is what’s killing American healthcare. And we won’t see true competition until we stop relying on someone else to pay our healthcare bills. Sadly, Obamacare will only make this problem worse.

Do read John Goodman’s recommendation. He describes how you could pay for healthcare yourself without bankrupting yourself.

Obamacare delenda est

A government analysis of the new health care law says it will not slow the overall growth of health spending because the expansion of insurance and services to 34 million people will offset cost reductions in Medicare and other programs.

The study, by the chief Medicare actuary, Richard S. Foster, provides a detailed, rigorous analysis of the law.

In signing the measure last month, President Obama said it would “bring down health care costs for families and businesses and governments.”

But Mr. Foster said, “Overall national health expenditures under the health reform act would increase by a total of $311 billion,” or nine-tenths of 1 percent, compared with the amounts that would otherwise be spent from 2010 to 2019.

This analysis isn’t really a surprise to me. It seems pretty obvious that adding lots and lots to uninsured people to Medicare will increase costs by quite a bit. And, this picture, is actually a best case scenario. It assumes that politicians won’t act like politicians.

Mr. Foster says the law will save Medicare more than $500 billion in the coming decade and will postpone exhaustion of the Medicare trust fund by 12 years, so it would run out of money in 2029, rather than 2017. In addition, he said, the reduction in the growth of Medicare will lead to lower premiums and co-payments for Medicare beneficiaries.

But, Mr. Foster said, these savings assume that the law will be carried out as written, and that may be an unrealistic assumption. The cuts, he said, “could become unsustainable” because they may drive some hospitals and nursing homes into the red, “possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries.”

If you believe that politicians are actually going to cut payments to Medicare physicians and hospitals, then you obviously haven’t been paying attention to the votes that have been taken in Washington over the last two decades. Congress loves to talk about cutting payments to Medicare. Then, every time the cuts come due, there’s a bipartisan rush to postpone the cuts. Government spending is going up. Way up.

Obamacare delenda est

we continue to spend more on drugs — in part because of the increasing use of so-called biologic medicines, which cost, on average, 22 times as much as ordinary drugs. In 2008, 28 percent of sales from the pharmaceutical industry’s top 100 products came from biologics; by 2014, that share is expected to rise to 50 percent.

Biologic drugs can be more expensive to manufacture; they are grown inside living cells rather than put together chemically, as conventional drugs are. But this does not fully account for their high prices. Another important factor is that they very rarely face competition from generic copies.

Congress has an opportunity to change this by including in health care reform incentives for generic drug makers to compete in the biologics marketplace. But unfortunately, both the House and the Senate versions of health care reform contain provisions that would discourage the development and significantly delay the approval of generic biologics.

In general, I’m in favor of swinging the pendulum back towards less intellectual property protection. This sounds like a bad idea to me.