Opting-Out Would Be "Political Suicide" For States Says Health Care Analyst

By Laura Smith - University of New Mexico/Talk Radio News Service

Michael Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies at the CATO Institute, said today that it would be "political suicide" for states to choose to opt-out of the public option plan.

Democrats in Congress, led by Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), are pushing for an opt-out provision within the public option, or government-run health insurance plan, as a way to demonstrate to states that they will not be forced to partake in the plan.

Referring to the public option plan as "Fannie Med," Cannon said that Reid and others are using the opt-out provision as a way of putting pressure on states to subscribe.

“The taxpayers in each state are going to have to be subsidizing Fannie Med. And what Governor or state official is going to say ‘I know your tax dollars are subsidizing this government program, but I’m not going to let you get your tax dollars back by participating in this program?’ That would be political suicide for state officials. And supporters of Fannie Med know it would be political suicide,” Cannon said.

Cannon argued that supporters of an opt-out provision are merely interested in finding way for the government to seize more control of the nation's healthcare system, and nothing more.

“They are counting on this to get their proposal through Congress and they know that it’s not going to inhibit the new government program’s ability to drive private insurers out of business,” Cannon said.

Cannon said even proponents of the public option plan are aware that it would crush competition in the marketplace, and echoed the theory that President Barack Obama favors the public option plan because it would lead to single-payer health insurance in the U.S.

“What they call public option is not really a public option. That’s a ruse,” he said.

No Correlation Between Poor Health And Lack Of Insurance, Say Experts

By Laura Woodhead - Talk Radio News Service

Lacking insurance is often voluntary and does not cause poor health, economics and health experts said Monday. Speaking at a forum held by Cato Institute, the panel argued that the often quoted number of 47 million grossly overestimates the problem of those who cannot afford health insurance in the United States.

Micheal Tanner, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, argued that it was important not to focus on "hard cases" when it comes to making health care policy. He explained that many uninsured Americans choose to be so voluntarily, and estimated that only about 5 million Americans fall into the category of being involuntarily uninsured for 2 years or more.

"You always get this impression that the uninsured is composed of people who are middle class, working two jobs, have seven kids all of whom are handicapped and suddenly they both lost their jobs and both lost their health insurance, will never see it again and will probably die in the next few months. The reality is vastly different," Tanner said, adding that many people choose not to have health insurance even though they can afford it.

Former Congressional Budget Office Direcrtor Dr. June O'Neill said it was important to look at factors besides lack of health care that contribute to health issues. O'Neill said that if you compare the mortality rates of those with health insurance to those that are involuntarily uninsured, those with health insurance live longer. However, O'Neill argued that variables such as smoking, obesity and income contribute more to this statistic then does a lack of insurance.

"When one hears about how lack of insurance causes death, you might think about all the other things that we could do to help people improve their health" she said.

Echoing this sentiment, Tanner said that there was no evidence to suggest that giving people health insurance will make them healthier.

"We tend to equate in this debate the idea that health insurance equals health care which equals health." Tanner said. "We can think of a lot more things that would have a greater impact on the health of the nation than providing health insurance."

"We need to take a deep breath, step back and try to get this right rather than get it through quickly," he said.

Health Care Experts Offer Other Options For Health Care Reform

By Aaron Richardson-Talk Radio News Service

Michael Tanner, CATO’s Head of Health Care and Social Security Research is unhappy with the most recent draft of the bill that will eventually pave the way for health care reform in the U.S.

During a discussion today on Capitol Hill, Tanner voiced his opposition to many of the bills provisions such as: tax on employer provided insurance, a payroll tax hike, a income tax surcharge on people who make 250,000 dollars or more and the proposed soda and beer tax.

According to Tanner, those with less income will be specifically harmed by the beer and soda tax since those in that demographic tend to purchase these products with more frequency.

CATO’s Director for Health Policy Michael Cannon, who appeared alongside Tanner, suggested letting employees choose their insurance providers instead of employers. Cannon noted that this would result in higher salaries for workers.

“The $620 billion in employer premium contributions does not come out of the employers' pockets, it is actually from workers' wages," said Cannon.

"If the employers weren’t providing health benefits to those workers the employers would have to return that $4,000 or $9,000 dollars back to those workers and add it to their salaries” added Cannon.

CATO experts forecast the future of an empowered China

Dr. Ted Galen Carpenter and Justin Logan, CATO Institute experts on U.S. / Chinese relations, today spoke at a briefing entitled “China’s Rise: Is Conflict Unavoidable?” The briefing examined the different political and economic ramifications a Chinese superpower would bring about across the world.

Carpenter, home after a recent trip to Beijing, said that the relationship our nation has with China is the most important foreign policy relationship we have. He stressed the difficult nature “reunifying” a politically divided China brought with it, and noted that bringing the Chinese together might not even come about should they continue to sustain their economic success.

Both Carpenter and Logan described the immense pressure the incoming U.S. President will have to both oppose the human rights violations the Chinese have demonstrated over recent years, and forge a healthy relationship with their nation for economic purposes and political stability. Dr. Carpenter worried that Republican presidential hopeful John McCain (R-Ariz) would cause animosity to arise between Washington lawmakers and the Chinese government.

Logan noted that natural disasters, massive pollution problems, and economic disparity have highlighted Chinese infrastructure problems. He said it is “not necessarily a good thing” that their country will owe ours money in the future, but that with good statesmanship a future U.S./Chinese relationship will not necessarily turn out to be entirely detrimental for our country or theirs.

Cato panel discusses radical solutions to failing African governments

The Cato Institute held a panel hosted by policy analyst Marian Tupy called “Let Failing African Governments Collapse: A Radical Solution to Underdevelopment” to discuss the negative consequences of Western aid to African nations and possible implications of ending aid.

Edward Luttwak, senior associate of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, explained African society in terms of “familism,” or loyalty and moral duty to one’s family which supersedes loyalty to the state. He said that familism prevents African citizens from having a successful government that they cooperate under at the expense of forfeiting their own interests. Luttwak also said that states are too expensive for African populations to maintain, thus governments imposed by foreign powers are unlikely to succeed.

George Ayittey, an economics professor from American University, called for a reform in Western aid to Africa, which he called “smart aid…which empowers the African people” and would include independent institutions such as media, judiciary, central bank, and armed forces and civil service.

Mauro de Lorenzo, resident fellow at American Enterprise Institute, argued that the West is presumptuous to claim that its influence can save or destroy African states. He also said that African democracies have been largely unsuccessful because they must consult with aid beneficiaries on how to spend their revenue, and lack tax revenue from their own people and thus the relationship that stems from collectively deciding how to spend it.