Sep 30, 2011

Friday Links

Sep 29, 2011

Event Tomorrow: Patrick Garry on Federalism, the Tea Party, & the New Deal

Tomorrow, we are lucky to be hosting Prof. Patrick Garry who will be speaking about federalism, limited government, and the Tea Party's revolt against the New Deal legacy.  Prof. Garry has written numerous books on politics and constitutional law including:
Prof. Garry will be speaking for about 40 minutes which will leave plenty of time for questions (and debate).  The event is open to everyone, and cupcakes from Magnolia Bakery will be provided courtesy of the Federalist Society.  We will be in Vanderbilt Hall room 202 (right at the top of the stairs).  We look forward to seeing you there!

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

Sep 26, 2011

Monday Links

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.

- Reproduced with permission from Ricochet

Sep 21, 2011

TODAY: FREE WINGS & BEER!!!!!!

Yes, yes, this is another student group happy hour. Are they all blurring together? Well did any of those other ones have WINGS? Ya. That's what we thought.
On Bleecker b/w McDougal & Sullivan
Come have some beer and wings, and find out what the ultra-mysterious-sounding Federalist Society is about (besides writing on the chalkboards and giving away free pizza and cupcakes all the time)!

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!

Sep 16, 2011

Friday Links

At yesterday's "What is the Federalist Society?" event, Prof. Epstein recalled the long-running debate within the Society between those advocating "judicial restraint" and those calling for a more active judiciary.  Today's link is to a famous 1984 debate between Prof. Epstein and then Prof. Antonin Scalia on this very subject at the CATO Institute.

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...
What: What is the Federalist Society?
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

    Sep 14, 2011

    Upcoming Event: Richard Epstein - What is the Federalist Society?

    After a very successful first event of the year with Prof. Brian Fitzpatrick, we will be having another event this Thursday to introduce students to the Federalist Society.  Our own Prof. Richard Epstein will be giving his talk "What is the Federalist Society?"  Prof. Epstein will talk about the goals of the Society, its history and role in the law community, and share some of his own opinions about current events.  This is always one of the most exciting events of the year, and you are encouraged to bring anyone who has ever been even slightly interested in attending a Fed-Soc event.

    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?
    When: Thursday 9/15 @ 4PM
    Where: Vand. Hall 216
    Prof. Epstein's latest articles:

    Wednesday Links

    Sep 13, 2011

    Tuesday Links

    Drug warrior

    Sep 12, 2011

    Upcoming Event: Preview of Sup. Ct's 2011-12 Term

    Prof. Brian Fitzpatrick
    On Tuesday September 13, we will be holding our first event of the Fall semester!  Join us and Prof. Brian Fitzpatrick of Vanderbilt who will be previewing the upcoming Supreme Court term.  There will be many important cases decided in the 2011-12 term.  Prof. Fitzpatrick clerked for Justice Scalia and is will also share his insights on the Justice as he enters his twenty-fifth year on the Court.

    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...
    A mustache that puts fear in the hearts of America's enemies
    Amb. John Bolton

    Sep 8, 2011

    Thursday Links

    Sep 7, 2011

    Wednesday Links

    Sep 6, 2011

    Tuesday Links

    Sep 2, 2011

    Friday Links

    Sep 1, 2011

    Thursday Links