Posted in Cost of labor, Economic Issues, Education, Free Society, Free-Market, government incompetence, Job loss, Keynesian Economics, Leadership, Liberty, Minimum wage, Philosophy, Policy Issues, Poverty, Rule of Law, Uncategorized, Wealth

Bernie Sanders Gets a Lesson in What a $15 Minimum Wage Would Mean – Reason.com

“…it’s telling to see how Sanders’ campaign responded to the allegation that the Vermont socialist is not putting his money where his mouth is.

In a statement, Shakir stressed that Sanders’ campaign “offers wages and benefits competitive with other campaigns, as is shown by the latest fundraising reports.”

Exactly! If Sanders’ campaign can find a sufficient number of employees willing to work for $10 an hour or $12 an hour, that’s fine. No one is being coerced to work for him, and he’s paying what the market for field workers allows.

Sanders the politician likes to criticize other employers for doing exactly what he’s doing.

“Americans should not be subsidizing the richest family in America and Walmart workers should not be living in poverty,” Sanders tweeted last month, castigating the big box retailer for not paying all workers $15 per hour. “Walmart’s greed has got to end,” he added.

But Sanders the employer surely knows that paying field workers $12 an hour instead of $15 per hour will allow his campaign to hire more field workers. He’s not employing those people because it makes him feel good to do it, and he’s not paying less than $15 per hour because he’s a skinflint multi-millionaire who is too greedy to care about workers. He’s employing them to help him succeed in a highly competitive arena where small margins can make a big difference.

When the problems with a government mandated minimum wage are so obvious that even a socialist’s campaign can’t help but acknowledge them, it should probably make you wonder if Sanders the politician is being willfully ignorant about one of his centerpiece proposals.

https://reason.com/2019/07/19/bernie-sanders-gets-a-lesson-in-what-a-15-minimum-wage-would-mean/

Posted in big government, Consumption Inequality, Cost of labor, Economic Issues, Free-Market, Government Regulations, Government Spending, Income Inequality, Liberty, Minimum wage, National Debt, Policy Issues, Poverty, Progressivism, Rule of Law, Uncategorized, Wealth

Sorry, Bernie Sanders, but Disney Doesn’t Have To Apologize for Making $1.3 Billion with Avengers: Endgame – Reason.com

More importantly, if you care about improving the quality of life and living standards over time, the essential question is always about creating broad-based, sustainable economic growth. What are the conditions that are most likely to help the economy get bigger, stronger, and more resilient? At the top of the list is a government which promulgates simple, predictable, and widely enforced rules; spends within its limits and doesn’t pursue arbitrary trade wars and military interventions; and doesn’t bog down the future with an ever-increasing mountain of debt that tamps down growth and freezes out investment. Near the bottom of the list is something that is part of Sanders’ policy repertoire: Announcing bold new plans (Medicare for All! Free College for All!) without even pretending to know how to pay for them.

https://reason.com/2019/04/30/sorry-bernie-sanders-but-disney-doesnt-to-apologize-for-making-1-3-billion-with-avengers-endgame/

Posted in Access to healthcare, Canadian Health System, Economic Issues, Government Spending, Healthcare financing, Medicaid, Medical Costs, Medical Practice Models, Medicare, News From Washington, News From Washington, DC & Related Shenanigans, Policy Issues, Protocols, Reforming Medicaid, Reforming Medicare, Tax Policy, Uncategorized

Medicaid for All Would ‘Bankrupt the Nation,’ Warns Bernie Sanders—In 1987 – Hit & Run : Reason.com

“Notably absent from Sanders’ proposed single-payer system was a detailed plan to pay for it. The senator said he would lay out the tax hikes necessary to fund his new system in separate legislation.

That may be because enthusiasm for single payer tends to die down pretty quickly once people get a sense of what sort of tax increases would be necessary to fund it. An Urban Institute analysis of a previous version of Sanders’ plan estimated that it would cost $32 trillion over a decade.

It promises huge overall savings along with coverage that would be far more expansive, and far more expensive, than Medicaid for all, with no clear way to pay for it, and no specific strategy for driving costs or spending down.

In 30 years of political advocacy, Sanders has not solved any of the fundamental problems with single payer. He has merely opted to pretend they do not exist.”

[Note: On annualized basis, that would more than double the amount we currently spend annually on healthcare.  And past projections related to the costs of gov’t programs always vastly underestimate the actual costs, as evidenced below. – The Sovereign Patient]

“The House Ways and Means Committee estimated that Medicare would cost only about $12 billion by 1990 (a figure that included an allowance for inflation). This was a supposedly “conservative” estimate. But in 1990 Medicare actually cost $107 billion.” http://reason.com/archives/1993/01/01/the-medicare-monster

Source: Medicaid for All Would ‘Bankrupt the Nation,’ Warns Bernie Sanders—In 1987 – Hit & Run : Reason.com

Posted in Access to healthcare, big government, DC & Related Shenanigans, Economic Issues, Government Regulations, Government Spending, Health Insurance, Healthcare financing, Independent Physicians, Liberty, Medicaid, Medical Costs, Medical Practice Models, Medicare, News From Washington, Organizational structure, Patient Choice, Patient Safety, Policy Issues, Reforming Medicaid, Reforming Medicare, Subsidies, Tax Policy, third-party payments, Uncategorized

Are You Sure You Want Medicare for All? – Reason.com

A big part of the problem, as Cato’s Tanner pointed out earlier this year is that “Americans want widely contradictory things from health-care reform. They want the highest-quality care for everyone, with no wait, from the doctor of their choice. And they want it as cheap as possible, preferably for free.” Promising, as Sanders and Warren do, to give everybody high-quality health care without regard for ability to pay will always find an enthusiastic audience. But delivering on that promise is likely to give us not the illusion of Medicare for All, but rather its awful, unsustainable reality.

Source: Are You Sure You Want Medicare for All? – Reason.com