Christian Schneider

Author, Columnist

Month: April 2007 (page 3 of 3)

George Will on Self-Determination

In my younger years, I was an unabashed fan of George Will\’s – so much so, that ten years ago I actually created a website in his honor (it seems embarrassingly crude now). Conversely, some young men in their early 20\’s actually decide to do things like \”go on dates.\”

On the site, I transcribed, by hand, a commencement speech Will gave to Washington University graduates in 1998. It discusses how large changes in social policy and individual standing can be accomplished if we simply decide to, through small and simple acts. Some excerpts:

You will be comforted to know, that in practicing our craft, we columnists are required to be brief and change the subject frequently. However, speakers generally should have just one thumping point of great practicality – as, for example, the late Conrad Hilton had when he appeared on \”The Tonight Show\” with Johnny Carson. Carson said to Mr. Hilton, \”You\’re a giant of American attainment, a legend in your own time, you\’ve built hotels all over the world, turn to the camera right over there, look your fellow countrymen in the eye and tell them the one thing based on your life\’s work that you would like your fellow countrymen to know.\” Like a great trooper, Hilton turned to the camera, looked America in the eye and said, \”Please, put the curtain inside the tub.\” (If you owned a quarter of a million bathtubs, you would say the same thing.)

A make-believe commencement address, written by someone who claimed to have been overdosed on coffee and M&Ms, offered graduates two injunctions: use sunscreen and floss regularly. Good advice, but not as important as the advice that I herewith give you, drawing on my expertise in the field in which I have the most expertise. To Washington University\’s Class of 1998, I say, my cardinal rule of life is: With a runner on second and no outs, try to hit behind the runner.

These micro-rules – put the curtain in the tub, use sun screen, floss, hit behind the runner – may seem to you a tad too minor to merit attention, particularly on a day this momentous. However (and here we come to my macro-point), small rules illuminate a few huge truths about lives – about the lives of individuals, and the lives of nations.

One truth is this: follow the simple micro-rules and you might avoid a lot of macro-problems that will elicit ever-more complex and coagulating rules, laws, and regulations.

Another truth is this: There are moments, and you are graduating into one, when people complain – well, journalists, who are not exactly people, complain – that there is scant news because the nation has a \”miniaturized\” political agenda. Well, class of 1998, let me tell you: This miniaturized national agenda is a sign of national health. And this health has something to do with learning – re-discovering, really – simple rules.

Let me give you two examples. One considers the physical health of individuals, and health care policy. The other concerns collective life – social policy, pertaining to poverty and education.

First, individual health. Does America want to improve its public health, and significantly reduce the portion of GDP devoted to health care? If so, then, America only needs to substantially reduce five things: vehicular accidents, violence, coronary heart disease, lung cancer, and AIDS. And Americans can reduce these five by simply deciding to do so.

What do these five have in common? The are all, to a significant extent, results of behavior – behavior known to be risky. So a substantial improvement in public health could be achieved by people deciding to behave more prudently – by deciding not to smoke, and to eat and drink and engage in sex more sensibly.

You see? Simple rules, no more recondite or demanding than \”put the curtain inside the tub\” or \”hit behind the runner.\” Now, consider the role that can be played by simple rules in public policy. Consider what we have learned about the problem of intractable poverty. It turns out that there are three rules for avoiding long-term poverty – rules which make it unlikely that a person adhering to them will fall into such poverty. The three rules are:

First, graduate from high school. Second, have no child out of wedlock. Third, have no child before you are 20.

This is not a moral assertion, it is an empirical observation: The portion of the population that today is caught in long-term poverty consists overwhelmingly of people who have disregarded one or more of these rules.

We now know what is required to get those who are trapped in poverty onto the ladder of upward mobility. What is required is some mixture of incentives and other assistance for those people to live by some simple rules of prudence. Again, small rules of behavior.

Similarly, after forty years of trying to improve education from grades K through 12, by a mixture of money and educational fads, we know now that the best predictor of a school\’s performance is the caliber of the families from which the children come to school. Indeed, the four most crucial variables determining a school\’s success are not variables at school. They are number of parents in the home, the amount of homework done in the home, the quantity and quality of reading material in the home, and the amount of television watched in the home. Government can do next to nothing to influence these variables.

So, yet again: Small rules of behavior, not unlike putting the curtain inside the tub or hitting behind the runner.

Read the whole thing here.

Tommy Thompson on Health Care

Yesterday, former governor Tommy Thompson announced in Milwaukee that he will be running for president. Apparently, there\’s no truth to the rumor that he will be picking Sanjaya Malakar as his running mate. In his speech, he discussed his plan for health care:

Thompson devoted part of his speech to health care, stressing preventive medicine and using information technology to cut costs. He talked in general terms about using the public and private sector to \”require health insurance for all\” in a way that avoids a \”heavy-handed mandate.\”

Apparently he prefers a \”softer\” mandate that requires everyone to buy health care. Maybe when you get your new mandated health care bill, it can be in the shape of a heart. When he signs the new law, he can put a teddy bear sticker on it.

All kidding aside, Thompson appears to be talking about a health care framework similar to what Governor (now presidential candidate) Mitt Romney signed in Massachusetts in 2006. The law requires all Massachusetts citizens to purchase health care by July of 2007, increases subsidies for the poor and uninsured, and assesses a fee to businesses that do not offer health insurance to their workers. The law creates a new state department called the Connector that is responsible for helping people find \”affordable\” health care.

When Romney signed the bill, it made national news, and began a discussion among conservatives about the merits of the program. The Conservative Heritage Foundation lauded the bill, as it provided near-universal coverage while maintaining the ability of health care providers to work in the private marketplace. They recently wrote an update on what they perceive to be the successes of the new law. WPRI columnist Ben Artz also recently expressed an open mind to the idea.

When the uninsured get sick, they go to the emergency room for care. Naturally, emergency room care is an expensive way to treat illnesses – and the cost of that care is passed on to other health care consumers or taxpayers. Massachusetts actually had a framework that allowed hospitals to bill the state for emergency room care for the uninsured (called \”uncompensated care\”). The state would then reimburse the hospital for their emergency room costs for treating the uninsured. In many states, the costs for uncompensated care are merely absorbed by the hospitals and the costs are passed on to other hospital customers.

Under Romney\’s plan, there wouldn\’t be any need for the state to pay for uncompensated care (since everyone would be insured), so it freed up nearly $500 million for the state to spend on subsidies to pay for health care for people under 300% of the federal poverty line.

The end result of Romney\’s law is that people above 300% of the poverty line would be forced to pay for their own health care, rather than having the cost of care being shifted to them. People who don\’t purchase health care for themselves are punished by not being able to take the individual deduction on their state income taxes.

Other groups, such as the Cato Institute, see Romney\’s law as overbearing government intrusion. An excellent criticism of the program by Michael Tanner of Cato can be found here.

Tanner points out that government mandates eliminate consumer choice and could damage the quality of health care individuals receive (the Canadian Supreme Court once said that \”access to a waiting list is not access to health care\”). He points out that the uninsured tend to be people between the ages of 18 and 24 who often choose not to heave health care because they\’re healthy and looking for a job that will provide benefits, and that uncompensated care only accounted for about 3% of health care spending in Massachusetts. Both those facts, according to Tanner, point to a lack of need to overhaul the entire system.

Furthermore, Tanner points out that Massachusetts chose not to repeal any of the current health insurance mandates that keep the cost of insurance artifically high (for my take on mandates, see my last TV appearance). While Romney wanted everyone to have health insurance, it is unclear how dedicated he was to making it \”affordable\” by not addressing many of these mandates.

Tanner also addresses the comparison of the health care mandate to the requirement some states have that all their citizens purchase auto insurance. He notes that in some cases, the rates of the insured are actually lower in states that require insurance than in states that do not. He said a similar situation could exist with a health care mandate.

If Thompson goes down the road of pushing for mandatory health care, it\’s unclear how his plan would differ from Romney\’s. And since Romney is actually running for president (and said this would be his signature issue), it will be interesting to see how Thompson distinguishes himself from a governor who has actually signed such a framework into law.

UPDATE: A reader e-mailed me to make another point argued by supporters of a univeral mandate: Generally, since the uninsured are young and healthy, it leaves an older and more fragile population left to pay for health care – which currently makes it more expensive for everyone. Requiring all the healthier people to take part in the health care pool should lower health premiums for everyone, as it spreads the risk out among a broader range of people. Or so the argument goes.

There\’s still that little issue about it being a government mandate, however.

Beard of Bees

In October of 2005, Eef Barzelay (lead singer of my favorite group, Clem Snide), played a live solo show at Indie Coffee here in Madison. Here\’s a video clip of the song \”Beard of Bees\” that he performed at that show – an amazing song that has yet to show up on one of his CDs.

Need Tax Advice?

So I drive on Park Street here in Madison during the day quite a bit – usually when I\’m heading down to the Capitol. If you\’ve made the drive during the day, then you\’ve seen the crazy guy dressed as Uncle Sam that stands out on the sidewalk and waves to cars – all day every day – as a promotion for a local tax preparer. I\’ve seen him out there in the pouring rain and the freezing cold, always smilin\’ and wavin.\’

My question, though: How does this help bring them business? Have you ever said to yourself the following:

\”Money\’s tight, so I really need the best refund I can get, so I want to make sure I\’m getting all the deductions I need, and I want to make sure it\’s accurate. Hey, maybe that escaped mental patient over there in the Uncle Sam suit can help me out.\”

Happy Opening Day!

I was in Chicago over the weekend, and my buddy Hal gave me a Robin Yount bobblehead that he got at a Brewer game last year. So Robin will be watching over me at work today while the Brew Crew begin the first ever 162-0 season. He can be seen here with my autographed photo of The Kid from Brooklyn.

\"\"

Of ESPN\’s 18 \”experts,\” six of them pick the Brew Crew to win the NL Central. Which means they will likely win 60 games.

Newer posts »