- David Henderson comments on some UCLA econ. professors' debate over what ended the Great Depression
EconLog: What Got Us Out of the Great Depression? - Zach Weiner on why economists are no longer welcome in the field of philosophy
Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - Madeline Janis sees Solyndra as proof of the need for more big govt. Tim Cavanaugh laughs
Reason: Redevelopment Thug Madeline Janis Has Dumbest Solyndra Gotcha Yet - Berkeley College Republicans have Affirmative Action Bake Sale; Students, Administration totally miss point, flip lids
City Journal: Half Baked
Sep 30, 2011
Friday Links
Sep 29, 2011
Event Tomorrow: Patrick Garry on Federalism, the Tea Party, & the New Deal
- An Entrenched Legacy: How the New Deal Constitutional Revolution Continues to Shape the Role of the Supreme Court
- Conservatism Redefined: A Creed for the Poor and Disadvantaged
- Limited Government and the Bill of Rights (forthcoming)
What: Patrick Garry on Federalism, Limited Govt., and the Tea Party
When: Tomorrow, 9/30 @ 11:00am
Where: VH 202
FREE CUPCAKES!
Sep 28, 2011
Wednesday Links
- Prof. Epstein discusses Obama's jobs bill
Defining Ideas: Obama's Jobs Bill: Read It and Weep - Peter Suderman discusses the impact of Obamacare thus far
Reason: A Year And a Half After ObamaCare, Employee Health Insurance Premiums Spike - Jonathan Adler queries why the govt. declined to seek en banc review at 11th Cir.
Volokh: 3 Reasons DoJ Passed on En Banc Review of the Mandate Decision - SCOTUS likely to take up Obamacare litigation
The Hill: Supreme Court Asked to Review Challenge to Health Reform Law - IJ's Clark Neilly discusses the surprising lack of judicial activism in courts today
WSJ: The Myth of Judicial Activism
Excerpts at Volokh
[NOTE: Mr. Neilly will be visiting us to discuss this topic in November!]
Sep 26, 2011
Monday Links
- A. Barton Hinkle on animal rights: "It's complicated."
Reason: Do Animals Have Rights? - Michael Barone is not sold on any of the GOP candidates so far
Still Looking for a Candidate to Replace Obama - Chris Christie still not running
WSJ: Christie Courted, Still Says No - Or maybe he is...
HuffPo: Bloomberg Praises Chris Christie
WaPo: Is Chris Christie Right to Leave Voters Guessing? - Megan McArdle on how Solyndra managed to fail so epically
Atlantic: How Did Solyndra Spend All That Money? - Gary Becker looks at the efficacy of government workers
Becker-Posner Blog: Government Workers and Fiscal Problems
Sep 23, 2011
Prof. Epstein: Playing the Deathcard in the Healthcare Debate
A Response to Jacob Weisberg
By Richard Epstein
In his recent post on Slate, the intrepid Jacob Weisberg eagerly plays the death card in order to excoriate Republican presidential nominees for their incoherent and cowardly opposition to ObamaCare in the latest primary debate. The hypothetical that we have to address is this: what should be done with a person without insurance who suffers catastrophic illness, which requires six months of intensive care? Should that person be allowed to die or should that person be supplied that care at public expense under, of course, ObamaCare?
One telling illustration about this example is that Weisberg does not tell us whether the individual who receives this care lives or dies when the treatment is over. If we assume the latter, the initial question is whether intensive care at, say, $10,000 to $20,000 per day represents the best use of social resources. A bit of simple arithmetic says that society has spent $1.83 million to $3.66 million on a venture that may well have kept this person alive in a comatose state or have subjected him to repeated invasive treatments when hospice care may well have been preferable. Alternatively, that person could have lived, but we do not know in what kind of state or how much money it will take to sustain him. In this instance, we might derive somewhat greater benefits, but only at a far greater cost.
The only alternative that is not covered by Weisberg's hypothetical is a case in which intervention is really cost effective: the use of a single day in the intensive care unit that results in keeping a person who suffers from a sudden injury alive so that he or she can return to a normal life thereafter. The hard question therefore is why is it so apparent to Weisberg or anyone else, that letting a grievously ill person die is the wrong alternative for a society that is determined to make its health care dollars go as far as they want. Weisberg never addresses this question in a coherent fashion because he is innocent of the notion that high levels of health care expenditures on one individual could exhaust resources that could have enabled many other individuals to survive. It is just irresponsible to ignore the hard question of scarcity in asking how to set social priorities.
The point has to be put in larger perspective. The question here is not whether people who lack money should receive health care free of charge. Of course they should. But the issue is which people should receive that care, and why? All of those hard issues are swept under the rug by acting as though nothing else will change if huge levels of resources are devoted to the first person that is carted into the emergency room. So what kind of institutional arrangements can deal with this issue?
One system that has already shown its defects is the 1986 EMTALA, or the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, signed by President Reagan. That legislation requires hospitals at their own expense to take in patients that need emergency care or are in active labor, and treat them until stabilized. Weisberg thinks that this statute is flawed, because these costs are not absorbed by hospitals but are passed on to consumers, employers and the government.
In fact, the economics of EMTALA are far more complex. In some instances, these costs cannot be passed on, so the hospitals that used to run emergency rooms shut them down, which put more people in peril. Nor is the issue of whom absorbs the costs the only one that has to be faced. There is the greater defect that EMTALA requires huge expenditures to be made for the wrong people, so that comatose individuals with little hope or revival, or chronic abusers get first call on social resources, which in turn are no longer available to others. The simple point about EMTALA is that in its effort to solve the access problem, it aggravates the moral hazard issue, by encouraging reckless or dangerous behavior in individuals who know that they can have care as of right. The result has not been pretty. Many ERs have shut down because their hospitals cannot meet the costs.
The provisions under ObamaCare will do nothing to address these difficulties. The premiums that are paid under the mandate may prove to be insufficient to cover the whole cost of these operations. The treatments in question may well be given to the wrong people for the wrong reason. The socialization process that does not work under EMTALA will not work under ObamaCare.
So what then is the solution? Here it is worth while taking a bit of historical perspective. The problem of taking care of very sick people did not arise in 1986. It was with us as a nation throughout our history. In the early days, there were very few people who were just left callously to die on streets. Charitable hospitals did open up their doors to supply extensive care even in the days before government reimbursement and tax deductions.
The key to their success was that they had the right to exclude people. That right was important not because they wanted certain patients to die, but because it allowed them to prioritize their care in the manner that they saw fit. It allowed them, in a word, to decide that hopeless cases and chronic abusers do not receive the same amount of care as others, and perhaps no care at all. Once they knew that they could use their resources as they saw fit, they could more effectively raise funds from private individuals who did not have to fear government appropriation of moneys through unwise programs. No one says that this alternative is perfect. But the greater the number of independent charities, the less likely it is that the failure of mission or purpose of any one of them will bring down the system.
Jacob Weisberg writes as though he, a compassionate person, can put these silly Republicans to shame. I have no desire to defend their statements, for they don’t seem any more sophisticated than he is. But it is worth noting that his systematic ignorance of how to deal with scarce resources in end of life situations could have tragic consequences. Put his preferred regime into place and there will be more needless deaths than in a voluntary regime that relies on private compassion and good sense to achieve a result that no set of government mandated programs could hope to match.
By Richard Epstein
One telling illustration about this example is that Weisberg does not tell us whether the individual who receives this care lives or dies when the treatment is over. If we assume the latter, the initial question is whether intensive care at, say, $10,000 to $20,000 per day represents the best use of social resources. A bit of simple arithmetic says that society has spent $1.83 million to $3.66 million on a venture that may well have kept this person alive in a comatose state or have subjected him to repeated invasive treatments when hospice care may well have been preferable. Alternatively, that person could have lived, but we do not know in what kind of state or how much money it will take to sustain him. In this instance, we might derive somewhat greater benefits, but only at a far greater cost.
The only alternative that is not covered by Weisberg's hypothetical is a case in which intervention is really cost effective: the use of a single day in the intensive care unit that results in keeping a person who suffers from a sudden injury alive so that he or she can return to a normal life thereafter. The hard question therefore is why is it so apparent to Weisberg or anyone else, that letting a grievously ill person die is the wrong alternative for a society that is determined to make its health care dollars go as far as they want. Weisberg never addresses this question in a coherent fashion because he is innocent of the notion that high levels of health care expenditures on one individual could exhaust resources that could have enabled many other individuals to survive. It is just irresponsible to ignore the hard question of scarcity in asking how to set social priorities.
The point has to be put in larger perspective. The question here is not whether people who lack money should receive health care free of charge. Of course they should. But the issue is which people should receive that care, and why? All of those hard issues are swept under the rug by acting as though nothing else will change if huge levels of resources are devoted to the first person that is carted into the emergency room. So what kind of institutional arrangements can deal with this issue?
One system that has already shown its defects is the 1986 EMTALA, or the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, signed by President Reagan. That legislation requires hospitals at their own expense to take in patients that need emergency care or are in active labor, and treat them until stabilized. Weisberg thinks that this statute is flawed, because these costs are not absorbed by hospitals but are passed on to consumers, employers and the government.
In fact, the economics of EMTALA are far more complex. In some instances, these costs cannot be passed on, so the hospitals that used to run emergency rooms shut them down, which put more people in peril. Nor is the issue of whom absorbs the costs the only one that has to be faced. There is the greater defect that EMTALA requires huge expenditures to be made for the wrong people, so that comatose individuals with little hope or revival, or chronic abusers get first call on social resources, which in turn are no longer available to others. The simple point about EMTALA is that in its effort to solve the access problem, it aggravates the moral hazard issue, by encouraging reckless or dangerous behavior in individuals who know that they can have care as of right. The result has not been pretty. Many ERs have shut down because their hospitals cannot meet the costs.
The provisions under ObamaCare will do nothing to address these difficulties. The premiums that are paid under the mandate may prove to be insufficient to cover the whole cost of these operations. The treatments in question may well be given to the wrong people for the wrong reason. The socialization process that does not work under EMTALA will not work under ObamaCare.
So what then is the solution? Here it is worth while taking a bit of historical perspective. The problem of taking care of very sick people did not arise in 1986. It was with us as a nation throughout our history. In the early days, there were very few people who were just left callously to die on streets. Charitable hospitals did open up their doors to supply extensive care even in the days before government reimbursement and tax deductions.
The key to their success was that they had the right to exclude people. That right was important not because they wanted certain patients to die, but because it allowed them to prioritize their care in the manner that they saw fit. It allowed them, in a word, to decide that hopeless cases and chronic abusers do not receive the same amount of care as others, and perhaps no care at all. Once they knew that they could use their resources as they saw fit, they could more effectively raise funds from private individuals who did not have to fear government appropriation of moneys through unwise programs. No one says that this alternative is perfect. But the greater the number of independent charities, the less likely it is that the failure of mission or purpose of any one of them will bring down the system.
Jacob Weisberg writes as though he, a compassionate person, can put these silly Republicans to shame. I have no desire to defend their statements, for they don’t seem any more sophisticated than he is. But it is worth noting that his systematic ignorance of how to deal with scarce resources in end of life situations could have tragic consequences. Put his preferred regime into place and there will be more needless deaths than in a voluntary regime that relies on private compassion and good sense to achieve a result that no set of government mandated programs could hope to match.
- Reproduced with permission from Ricochet
Sep 21, 2011
TODAY: FREE WINGS & BEER!!!!!!
 |
| On Bleecker b/w McDougal & Sullivan |
What: Federalist Society Beginning of the Year Happy Hour
When: Wednesday (today), 9/21 @ 6 pm
Where: 1849 (Bleecker between Sullivan and MacDougal)
Wednesday Links
It's been awhile, I know. But here are some links!
- Megan McArdle doesn't see a jobs plan, she sees a campaign document
Atlantic: Obama's Deficit Reduction: A Campaign Document Not a Policy Plan - Arnold Kling and Robert Russell not terribly optimistic about spending cuts
EconLog: Political Cynicism - Orin Kerr and Jonathan Adler debate whether constitutional opposition to mandates is actually a good libertarian strategy
Kerr: Is the Individual Mandate “Unprecedented” Because It Is More Statist Than Previous Laws, or Because It Is More Market-Oriented?
Adler: Is the Mandate More “Market-Oriented” than Available Alternatives (and Does It Matter?) — A Response to Orin - David Harsanyi on Obama's class war
Reason: Let's Eat the Rich - Becker and Posner discuss market failures and government failures
- New article from our own Prof. Richard Epstein on Obama and Buffett's call to soak the rich
Defining Ideas: The Obama-Buffett Siren Call
Sep 16, 2011
Friday Links
Scalia v. Epstein: Two Views on Judicial Activism
Sep 15, 2011
EVENT TODAY! Epstein: What is the Federalist Society?
 |
| Everything you wanted to know, but were too afraid to ask... |
When: Today, 9/15 @ 4PM
Where: Vand. Hall 216
Bonus: Subway Sandwich platters! Come early to pick your fave!
Extra Bonus Epstein Footage:
Thursday Links
- Damon Root reviews and discusses David Bernstein's Rehabilitating Lochner
Reason: Lochner Isn't a Dirty Word - Jay Cost is skeptical that Obama's jobs plan will help him keep his
Weekly Standard: The Jobs Bill Won't Save Obama's Job - Becker and Posner review Obama's jobs speech
- Nate Silver sees a 2010 redux
538: For Democrats, It's 2010 All Over Again - The Economist charts the world's biggest employers
- Ronald Bailey on the Solyndra scandal and crony capitalism
Reason: Solyndra Scandal Gets Even Worse for Obama Administration - Dan Foster and Sean Matro lay down some SCIENCE on solar energy
National Review: Solyndra and the Party of Science
Sep 14, 2011
Upcoming Event: Richard Epstein - What is the Federalist Society?
This is a great opportunity to interact with one of NYU's most prominent scholars, and, as always, free food will be provided (make suggestions in the comments).
What: What is the Federalist Society?Prof. Epstein's latest articles:
When: Thursday 9/15 @ 4PM
Where: Vand. Hall 216
Wednesday Links
- Matthew Dowd says that Perry's attacks on Social Security may not be as damaging as many assume
The Atlantic: Why Rick Perry Could Win on Social Security - Democrats are worried after embarrassing losses in Nevada and New York
Politico: Twin Defeats Spark Democratic Fears - Bryan Caplan charts some surprising political externalities of immigration
EconLog: The Political Externalities of Immigration - Steve Sexton argues that a liquidity trap does not necessarily make economic rules "topsy-turvy"
Freakonomics: Examining the EPA Cave-In: Does the Broken Window Fallacy Apply?
Sep 13, 2011
Tuesday Links
 |
| Drug warrior |
- Prof. Epstein surveys the decade of legal blunders made following 9/11
Defining Ideas: A Decade of Legal Blunders - Michael Barone doesn't have much nice to say about Obama's "jobs" speech
Washington Examiner: Obama Buys the Drinks Other Guys' Pay For - Fred barnes says Mitt won last night's GOP debate
Weekly Standard: Romney's Win - Jacob Sollum chronicles Obama's crusade against drugs
Reason: Bummer - Shikha Dalmia responds to Kevin Drum's response to her response to Rick Perry's quote on social security (got it?)
Reason: The Truth and Lies About Social Security
Sep 12, 2011
Upcoming Event: Preview of Sup. Ct's 2011-12 Term
 |
| Prof. Brian Fitzpatrick |
As always, free food will be provided!
What: Preview of Supreme Court's 2011-12 Term
When: Tuesday September 13 @ 4:00pm
Where: Vanderbilt Hall 216
Sep 9, 2011
Friday Links
Sorry for the late post, but that's what happens when you have an SBA Party and Packers victory on the same night (Go Pack!). Anyway, here goes...
 |
| Amb. John Bolton |
- The Dept. of Justice has declared war on Rock-and-Roll
Reason: The Era of Big Government Is Not Over - Megan McArdle looks at Obama's "new" jobs plan, says "meh"
Atlantic: Obama's Job Plan: Mostly More of the Same - Superbly mustachioed former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton remembers 9/11
AEI: The Pentagon's on Fire, Amb. Bolton Remembers 9/11 - Former spook Reuel Marc Gerecht on the state of War on Terror
Weekly Standard: America v. Jihadists
Sep 8, 2011
Thursday Links
- George Will reviews David Bernstein's Rehabilitating Lochner
WaPo: Why Liberals Fear the "Lochner" Decision - David Bernstein comments on the review
Volokh: George Will on Rehabilitating Lochner - The Journal is less than ecstatic about Romney's jobs plan
WSJ: Mitt Romney's 59 Economic Flavors - Shikha Dalmia tries to convince Rick Perry that social security is not a Ponzi scheme... it's worse
Reason: Social Security Is Not a Ponzi Scheme, Mr. Perry - NYU's own Mario Rizzo discusses the current state of economics
ThinkMarkets: What Is Economics Today? - Nate Silver says electability may be a liability for Perry in the GOP primaries
538: Electability a Primary Liability for Perry
Sep 7, 2011
Wednesday Links
- Richard Epstein assails the Democrats' job-killing policies
Defining Ideas: The Road to Economic Perdition - Steven Landsburg recaps his debate with Paul Krugman on Hurricane Irene disaster relief
Big Questions: Recap - Yale's George Priest lambasts the DOJ's decision to challenge A&T-Mobil (clever, right?)
WSJ: Washington's Antitrust Timewarp (Google the title to get around pay-wall) - David Friedman is skeptical that global warming's effects will be net negative
Ideas: What Is Wrong with Global Warming Anyway?
Sep 6, 2011
Tuesday Links
- Brilliant! Michigan bar owners ban lawmakers for banning smoking [above]
- David Koppel explores the GOP presidential candidates' approach to the abortion issue
Volokh: Who wants to provoke a constitutional crisis over abortion? - Byron York remarks on Obama's awful poll numbers
Washington Examiner: Poll: 81% Say Obama's Economic Policies Not Working - Becker and Posner discuss what to do about the failing United States Postal Office
- Fed-Soc favorite Judge Douglas Ginsburg coming to NYU!
Reuters: Appeals Court Judge Ginsburg to Take Post at NYU - Michael Barone on Congress' rebuke of President Obama's speech
Washington Examiner: Speech Fiasco and Audacity of Weakness - Alex Tabarrok continues the debate with Krugman over the broken window fallacy
Marginal Revolution: The Breaking Windows Fallacy
Sep 2, 2011
Friday Links
- Net ZERO jobs created in August
- David Henderson points to evidence that the DOJ has it wrong on the AT&T/T-Mobil merger
EconLog: AT&T/T-Mobile Merger is Pro-Consumer - Gary Becker reminds us that market failures do not necessarily call for government intervention
WSJ: The Great Recession and Government Failure (HT: Volokh Conspiracy) - Also, Becker and Posner take on Warren Buffett's call for greater taxes on the rich
- Nick Gillespie takes a look at Obama's economic agenda
Reason: Obama's Jobs Program: If the Choice is Between "Go Big or Go Home," Start Packing Now
Sep 1, 2011
Thursday Links
- Megan MaCardle draws parallels between Obama's reelection campaign and Hoover's
Atlantic: How Do Obama's Re-election Chances Stand Up to Hoover's? - Peter Suderman discusses the DOJ's war on AT&T
Reason: The Department of Justice v. AT&T - Michael Barone predicts how Clarence Thomas might react to the Obamacare litigation
RCP: Obamacare and the Jurisprudence of Clarence Thomas - Arnold Kling responds to Megan MaCardle's discussion of journalistic bias
EconLog: Media Bias and Asymmetric Insight
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)