Economic Reopening, Resistance, and Perspective

As States reopen for business, and as increasing numbers of businesses reopen and customers patronize them against State government encouragements or outright diktats to the contrary, Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden is nattering on that President Donald Trump’s policies are undermining the core pillars of our economic strength. In the meantime, the NLMSM is focusing ghoulishly on body counts and not mentioning any other relevant information.

The following table looks at some data for three States mentioned in one Wall Street Journal article, another State mentioned in a different WSJ article, and two States mentioned by Fox News.

State Wuhan Virus Deaths Wuhan Virus Recoveries Ratio of Wuhan Virus Recoveries to Deaths
Illinois 3,406 Not Reported
California 2,719 Not Reported
New York 26,682 58,006 2.17
Georgia 1,441 Not Reported
Michigan 4,555 22,686 4.98
Texas 1,095 21,022 19.20

Wuhan Virus data are from Johns Hopkins University’s CSSE Dashboard and were current as of 11 May.

Carefully ignored by Biden in his meandering and by the NLMSM in their panic-mongering are those recovery rates and ratios. Check the CSSE data—all of the States reporting recovery rates are reporting recovery-to-death ratios of at least 2:1, and generally much larger.

Progressive-Democrats in charge of their States, despite these favorable trends though, want to keep their States locked down and having no economic activity—all in the claimed name of safety. Of course the longer States stay shut down, the deeper will be the economic recession we’re facing at the end of summer and into the November elections.

Note, though, that wanting a recession explicitly as a means of defeating President Donald Trump in this election has been a key part of the Progressive-Democrats’ playbook for two years.

Be very heads up this November.

Personal Responsibility and Black Americans

Surgeon General Jerome Adams, among too few others, has pointed out that part of the reason the Wuhan Virus is hitting minorities so much harder than others—with blacks getting the bulk of the ink on this—is because of their inaction on factors under their control.  Leave aside factors like the pre-existence of health conditions like obesity, diabetes, and hypertension, medical conditions that are generally beyond their control. Leave aside, further, that individual life-style choices can nevertheless significantly affect, if not eliminate, those conditions.

In addition to suggesting that blacks should put more of their personal attention toward those medical conditions, Adams was so rude as to suggest that blacks should exercise an additional measure of personal responsibility and do better about complying with CDC guidelines regarding preemptive measures: frequent hand washing, shelter in place except for essential tasks, and use face coverings/keep safe distances from others when in public (especially the former when the latter isn’t possible).

Of course, the Left, with its race-baiters at the fore, objected, vehemently and in their own racist way.

To assert that blacks have the power to affect their own destiny was deemed racist, heartless, and outrageous.

Well, of course it was. No less a light than that icon of the Progressive movement, Woodrow Wilson, insisted to blacks that they should be grateful for the protections of segregation.

Blacks, in the eyes of the Left, simply aren’t capable of personal responsibility.

A Supreme Court Error

No, I’m not talking about the Court’s cowardice on gun rights. This one concerns the Court’s nearly unanimous decision regarding any Congress’ ability to undo what a prior Congress has done and the Executive Branch’s obligation to spend money that hasn’t been appropriated.

The Court upheld health coverage providers’ demand, under Maine Community Health Options v US for

payments to health insurers for so-called risk corridors in ObamaCare’s first three years[.]

Never mind that the 112th Congress, in 2010, undid what the prior 111th Congress had done and both refused to appropriate funds for those “risk corridors” and explicitly forbade the Executive Branch from making any risk corridor payments from other funds.

Never mind that money must actually be appropriated before it can be spent. Article I, Section 9 of our Constitution makes that clear.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law….

At least it used to be clear.

Now none of that matters. In addition to the “implied rights” that the Supremes are wont to manufacture, now it has manufactured out of whole cloth an implied obligation.  The health coverage providers are owed the money because a prior, overridden, Congress wanted the money paid out.

And We the People are the ones who’ll be left paying for this egregious error of the Court. Pay up, suckas.

Drug Approvals

Dr Henry Miller, ex of the FDA where he founded the agency’s Office of Biotechnology, had some thoughts on how to speed up vaccine approval procedures in his Wednesday op-ed. They’re good ideas; although many of them only niggle around the edges of a long-ish procedure.

I have an additional idea.

Allow doctors to broadly prescribe the vaccine—or any drug—once it’s been shown to be safe. Such drugs should be clearly marked, and the patient clearly advised, that while the vaccine has been shown to be safe, it hasn’t been shown to be effective.

This would vastly broaden the subject base for assessing effectiveness, and so greatly accelerate the assessments, and it would put what turns out to be effective drugs into the hands of doctors and patients much sooner.

Patients that get what turns out to be ineffective—but safe—vaccines will be no worse off than they would have been had no drug been permitted yet.

The market place should determine what should be available as effectiveness or ineffectiveness of particular vaccines becomes widely known rather than leaving the decision solely to government bureaucrats, no matter how well-intended they might be.

Medicare for All

Simon Johnson, of the MIT Sloan School of Management and an “informal” advisor to Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate and Senator Elizabeth Warren’s (D, MA) presidential campaign, thinks her Medicare for All scheme is the cat’s meow.  It would, he claims

cut costs by reducing inefficiency, eliminating predatory pricing (for example, for prescription drugs) and using the purchasing power of a single-payer system. Her plan would also constrain the growth rate of underlying medical costs.

This, of course, is utter nonsense.  While Johnson correctly notes that our present health care burden hangs around the neck of every company in America, and this dead weight gets heavier each year, government intervention only makes things worse, as each of the points he makes, ostensibly in support of his contention, illustrate clearly. Medicare for All schemes—not only Warrens, but all of them—only and severely exacerbate that government intervention and increase the costs heavily.

First, there is the onerous contribution most companies are required to make through employer-sponsored insurance. Every business owner wants employees and their families to have health insurance, but the cost rises inexorably.

Labor market competition and labor unions are the source of this “requirement,” and the government-mandated restrictions on businesses’ ability to band together—unless they’re in a narrowly defined “similar” business—denies them the market power to negotiate effectively.

Second, companies cannot by themselves easily constrain health-insurance premiums. They need healthy workers who are not ruined financially when a family member is rushed to the emergency room. In most competitive markets across the US, if an employer cuts back on health benefits (or raises deductibles, copays or out-of-pocket expenses), it raises the burden on employees and increases the risk that the best will leave.

See above regarding labor market competition, union power, and government-mandated limits on businesses’ negotiating power.

Third, the unpredictable nature of health-care costs makes it significantly harder to start and run a company. Every year, entrepreneurs and managers hold their breath while insurance companies decide what to charge them.

Again, see above regarding businesses’ government-mandated limits on negotiating power, now in contrast with the unpredictability of realized health care needs.

Nor is Medicare for all damaging only fiscally: such schemes eliminate choice; in fact, their proponents say that we Americans are too stupid to make our own choices; each of the plans’ proponents would throw the millions of us who have private health coverage, coverage better tailored to our individually determined needs, from one source or another off those plans.

 

Further restricting our choice—our right to decide for ourselves on what we’ll spend our property, our money, is Medicare for All’s requirement that we buy that one-size-fits-all government insurance—even though we judge ourselves healthy enough to not need a coverage plan or to not need Government’s dictated plan, or we just choose to run the risk and spend our money on our own needs and wants.  After all, these Progressive-Democrats Know Better, so by their fiat, we are to be denied.

 

Then Johnson sneers at efforts to switch to competition, but as the political economist should know, the failures here are failures of Republicans and failures of Progressive-Democrat obstructionism. The failures have nothing to do with competition.

Finally, the health care coverage costs—which are apart from health care needs—exist and burgeon by government fiat at the State level as well as the Federal, and the costs inflicted have little to do with health care provision or cost of provision, nor are they related to the likelihood of any particular health care need. Businesses—and we consumers—are not allowed to trade across state lines, and State insurance commissions set the range of premiums health care coverage entities are allowed to charge.

Obamacare made that even more explicit at the Federal level: the coverage plans carried coverages for matters we consumers neither want nor need and at fixed prices that are by design independent of the likelihoods of those mandated coverages. Beyond that, Obamacare forced millions of consumers off our privately held plans that we preferred and forced us to buy from the Federal government’s “market.”

Medicare for All is just an extreme version of Obamacare. In every respect. At trillions of dollars of higher cost.