Compression and Power

The Wall Street Journal is to be commended for its principled support of basic human rights.  On that, the editors recently made a strong case for the right of self determination for Hong Kongers in the op-ed “Twilight Zone Politics”.  The most poignant statement in the whole piece is:

Welcome to Hong Kong's Twilight Zone politics, where reality of the public's wishes bears little relation to how the unelected government behaves.

Seeing the Journal support basic morals in the face of an oppressive system is quite heartening, especially considering their record in that regard.  To wit, despite the clear and enduring belief of US citizens that our government should ensure universal health coverage, you’d never guess it to read the Journal.  Ground facts force the Journal to concede “health care as a top concern of voters”, but they seem a mite skittish when it comes to looking at how US Americans think the system should be reformed.  And this is a WSJ report, mind you, not an opinion piece; although the casual Journal reader might be forgiven for confusing the two.

Another obvious example of this double standard is the Iraq attack.  There’s little question as to how voters feel about the “fiasco”, but WSJ casts attempts to draw down the war as “futile gestures”.  Or else on waterboarding: the people believe one thing, but the Journal’s commentators know that we really ought to “authorize some forms of torture”.  So much for democracy (or decency or the rule of law).

Now those of a weasely bent may point out that the WSJ editors specifically mentioned Hong Kong’s “unelected government” as opposed to our freely elected government (free in the political sense, not the economic, of course).  But how is it better or any less of a political “Twilight Zone” that we elect people who do not represent us, particularly in matters financial?

The Journal spends a great deal of time observing China’s social and economic situation—and not without good reason—but it would do well to take the observations it garners abroad and apply them right here at home.

Posted by lowsenm at 04:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The 16. December 2007 print edition of New York Times headlined an article on US government agencies collecting intelligence from phone traffic passing through US telecom firms (“Wider Spying Fuels Aid Plan for Telecoms” by Eric Lichtblau, James Risen and Scott Shane).  The article is framed on the Bush administration’s “high profile campaign… to persuade Congress to pass legislation protecting companies from lawsuits for aiding the National Security Agency’s warrantless eavesdropping program.”  It goes on to cite examples of the program in action such as “collecting the phone records of thousands of Americans and others inside the United States who call people in Latin America” to “detect narcotics trafficking”.

The core issue seems to be that the administration “uses broad administrative subpoenas but does not require court approval to demand the records.”  Now from a military perspective, such as in a battle between two opposing armies, court approval to collect intelligence does not come into the equation.  Field commanders use their intelligence collection resources at will to gather the information they need to fight and win the battle.  The military model, however effective it might be in battle, is a poor fit for civilian society.  Indeed, the fourth amendment to the Constitution rules out such unrestricted tactics:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The term I’ve most often heard to describe warrantless or “unreasonable” searches is “fishing expedition”, that is an investigation by the government potentially unlimited in scope to uncover any infraction.  Other often raised issues on this topic include public cameras, medical information and even abortion.  The usual argument for allowing the government greater power to infringe upon the security of our persons is that it will result in some common benefit, such as a reduction in crime; not unreasonable on the face of it.

Posted by lowsenm at 12:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Merrill Matthews of the Council for Affordable Health Insurance (CAHI) writes in the 1. December Wall Street Journal:

Hillary Clinton asserted that health insurance companies spend $50 billion to avoid paying claims… Statements like these raise real questions about Sen. Clinton's grasp of the facts. But they are also part of a broader effort by the left to disparage the private-sector health insurance industry as wasteful and inefficient, meanwhile claiming that there would be great savings if the government covered more people.

Although the opinion piece is titled “Hillary’s False Claims”, it really only looks at the above claim, construing it as part of a larger health care plan from “the left”.  Matthews’ key piece of disproof is:

… the industry spends roughly $30 billion a year adjudicating those claims -- not "denying" them, but evaluating and processing them. There doesn't seem to be a solid number for the amount of claims actually denied, but several health actuaries estimate that amount to be around $3 billion.

I think it bears stating that spending $30 billion to make back $3 billion doesn’t make a lot of sense on the face of it.  Certainly efforts must be made to prevent fraud and waste, but at a ratio of $10 spent for every $1 made back, it seems logical to ask whether this is the ideal level of oversight, but of course Matthews does not address this.  Anecdotally, it would seem as though much effort is expended just getting the paper work “right”, which might suggest an unwieldy system.  But it's probably easier to harp on Clinton's ignorance.

… regulation is one of the primary causes of high health-insurance costs. States impose more than 1,900 mandates…

While I can’t vouch for all 1,900 mandates, I can affirm that structural protection (probably in the form of law) is essential to ensuring any form of general medical coverage.  Left to market devices, those most in need of health care would be deemed “not economically viable” and left by the wayside.  In other words, life that costs too much is cheap.

Mandates raise the cost of coverage. Some states micromanage who insurers have to accept, and impose price controls on the policies. All of those states have significantly higher premiums than the less-regulated states.

Translation: Health care is expensive and it would be cheaper not to provide it to the unprofitable.  There probably aren't too many human beings who think this way, but corporate bodies have the bottom line to consider.  Fortunately, individuals still have the vote.  But can people- fallable, inexpert, selfish individuals- really decide democratically how to approach this issue?

CAHI members might believe that the general public holds misconceptions of the nature of the system, and they're probably right.  Still, people who don't govern themselves are as like to be misled by others.  Will we make mistakes?  Yes, at least once.  What few seem to appreciate is what we would all learn by doing it.

Posted by lowsenm at 02:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)