healthcare
How can pharma firms market their way back to growth?
LinkHow can pharma firms market their way back to growth?
Knowledge@Wharton covers a recent book I helped author with a team from McKinsey, Google, and Wharton on the future of digital in pharma marketing. Learn more at http://www.pharma3d.com/
If we’re going to play that game, I think that game can be played here as well, because after all, the minimum coverage provision only kicks in after people have earned a minimum amount of income. So it’s a penalty on earning a certain amount of income and self insuring. It’s not just on self insuring on its own. So I guess one could say, just as the restaurant owner could depart the market in Heart of Atlanta Motel, someone doesn’t need to earn that much income. I think both are kind of fanciful…
Soliciter General Neal Katayl. Philip Klein summarizes the quote as: “If you don’t like mandate, earn less money.”
(via Michael Cannon)
Fixing the deficit? Forget health care reform, just give Greg Mankiw a billion dollars.
LinkFixing the deficit? Forget health care reform, just give Greg Mankiw a billion dollars.
Brilliant reductio ad absurdum.
I have a plan to reduce the budget deficit. The essence of the plan is the federal government writing me a check for $1 billion. The plan will be financed by $3 billion of tax increases. According to my back-of-the envelope calculations, giving me that $1 billion will reduce the budget deficit by $2 billion.
Addressing the “right” to jobs, homes, and health care
LinkAddressing the “right” to jobs, homes, and health care
Grove City College professor Mark Hendrickson makes a great distinction between rights as the founders intended (negative and natural) and “rights” as we know them today (positive and entitlements of the state).
That our basic rights are unalienable means, simply and unequivocally: No person or group of persons, including government, is justified (or authorized: see the Fifth Amendment) in trespassing upon anyone’s rights – that is, in taking life, liberty, or property from another – except via due process of law as a penalty for having harmed or violated someone else’s life, liberty, or property. One person’s rights end where another’s begin. Nobody’s rights trump anyone else’s.
Under the influence of progressive and socialist ideas, the American right to not have somebody take his or her property has been corrupted and inverted. Now, people often claim a “right” to have certain things provided by others. One of the most famous examples of this inverted concept was President Franklin Roosevelt’s “Economic Bill of Rights.” In 1944, FDR asserted that Americans had a “right to a useful and remunerative job,” “a decent home,” “adequate medical care,” and so on. Nobody objects to decent jobs, homes, health care, and education, but these good things can’t be “rights.” If one person has a legal right to have a home, then other people must be compelled to provide that home. That would violate those citizens’ rights to their own liberty and property. “Rights” in FDR’s sense negates “rights” in the Founders’ sense.