Getting Things Exactly Backwards
Matt Yglesias: Texas has created the most jobs because Texans are building the most houses.
Austin Frakt and Aaron Carroll: Unethical federal medical experiments is a major reason we need government control of medical care.
The third item is really funny. If you tell individuals they can make ANY decision for themselves you are effectively telling state government it can’t make it’s own decsions. And city government. And county government.
Heavens. Where will it end?
Why don’t you let commenters vote on the most ridiculous statement of the day? I think Yglesias wins this one hands down.
If you tell people around the world they have human rights, aren’t you effectively telling despotic governments they can’t make their own decisions?
Of course. But what’s wrong with that?
I take exception to Aaron Carroll’s statement. I always thought the whole point of liberty is to maximize individuals’ choices rather than cater to state government’s preferences. State governments are run by politicians, whose campaigns are often funded by special interests. This provides a powerful incentive for politicians to cater to the whims of interest groups.
On the other hand, allowing consumers to buy insurance across state lines lets consumers decide which benefits they are willing to pay for.
These are all pretty bad. I’m not sure which one wins the prize for the most ridiculous, though.
What is wrong with Matt’s hypothesis? Matt is saying that suboptimal regulation is distorting people’s moving decisions. The best opportunities, holding land policies constant, are unfortunately frequently in those places which have very suboptimal zoning and land regulations, so people are more likely to move to Texas than Boston while in a free market this might not be the case. Why would that be something with which you disagree, let alone consider ‘completely backwards?’
Kevin: Texas job growth is largely due to low taxes and fewer senseless regulations. In other words, Texas is creating jobs because the public policies of the state are pro-job growth.
Once they have jobs and are earning an income, people buy houses. Houses are the result of jobs, not the cause of them.
George: All regulations are senseless. Matt is agreeing with you by saying that Texas’ housing regulations are much better than those of various other areas. Why would you assume this has nothing to do with where people choose to work or create businesses?
I don’t see what is wrong with Frakt and Carroll’s article on regulation of medical research and practices? It is the best way to avoid unnecessary and wasteful medical care, and unethical practices. Given the asymmetry between patient and provider understanding of health care, regulation is needed for the protection of the patient, and for promoting information flow. This problem also exists in the financial sector, which also requires regulation to make it safe as well.
Saying it is backwards doesn’t make it so. It is a belief based on ideology, rather than an understanding of the history of the medical system.
@Eric,
One problem that I see is the slippery slope between just enough regulation necessary to safeguard people versus excess regulation as the regulators attempt to expand their domain.
I doubt if the type of experimentation that the founder of Medtronic engaged in after WWII would even be allowed today.
Frakt’s article discussing the reasons why health insurance should not be sold across state lines, when states have decided on different ways to regulate insurance makes sense. Your saying it backwards doesn’t make it so. Some states want community rating and universal insurance, others do not. Without state regulation, community rating and universal insurance is not possible.
One advantage of federalism, i.e. giving states responsibility to control things is that it provides a laboratory to evaluate different approaches to solving problems. Health care is an example of where this can work.
In fact, Massachusetts and Vermont, which have universal insurance, are healthier states to live in than some of the southern states like Mississippi, which has the least healthy population in the US, relying on a high risk pool to insure sick individuals, who are locked out of insurance. The state relies heavily on federal funds to underwrite this high risk pool. A map of the states that have mortality decreases versus increases shows this difference quite clearly.
@Devon,
This sort of balance you outline is a problem with all regulation. Imperfect regulation is better than none at all. Thalidomide babies, the Syphillis experiment on African Americans, and the financial crash are examples of the outcome of the lack of regulation.