Today, I am a very, very disappointed subscriber of the WSJ. I woke to read that the editors accuse Senator
McCain of being a back stabber. I
have both written and called the paper to tell them otherwise. I post a copy of my letter to the editors below.
I find your caricature of John McCain in your editorial entitled, A Republican Failure, extremely offensive. Mr. McCain has served our country well. His refusal to bend and break under unimaginable torture as POW demonstrates his dedication to his fellow man. If he did not stab his fellow man in the back then why would he do it near the end of his life?
Moreover, you fail to recognize the true problem. The problem is lack of leadership, which starts at the top. Donald Trump has been a failure. He does not understand the problem and as such he cannot help the Republicans improve their aim (i.e. stated goal).
The goal should be in three successive steps: first contain, then stop and then reduce the cost of healthcare. This goal may require repealing parts or all of the ACA, but repealing ACA does not truly address the causes that have led to healthcare costs increasing on average 250 bps more than GDP over the past 50 years. Government regulation crafted by both parties during this period has created an industry that works in an oligopoly framework. Both parties must work together to unwind this mess.
Showing posts with label Letter to the Editors (WSJ). Show all posts
Showing posts with label Letter to the Editors (WSJ). Show all posts
Saturday, August 5, 2017
Tuesday, March 14, 2017
Still Dealing With Whom Is Going To Pay For Healthcare
Healthcare once again rears its ugly head now that the CBO has scored the GOP's ACA replacement and predicts that the rolls of the uninsured would increase which would lower the Federal government's costs.
Sadly, the Republicans that sponsored the bill seek to shift costs, not lower them just like the Democrats and President Obama did years before. With the ACA, it just happened that individuals and families like mine carried the burden in costs (please see prior posts). This time it will be the poor and the states. Yet, we all carry the costs in one form or another. I guess we all have to share in this misery before real reform takes place.
Interestingly, my first letter to the editors of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) written approximately six years ago referenced healthcare costs, which is as follows:
I agree with Dr. Donald Berwick in his op-ed article entitled, The Right Way to Reform Medicare, that we need to reduce our healthcare costs. He realizes that improving quality while reducing costs benefits consumers, but he woefully fails to see, understand and acknowledge, which is typical of most bureaucrats, that unfettered competition in a capitalistic economic system is the genesis of these consumer benefits, not more government regulation.
Upon reflection, I think what I wrote hits the nail on the head.
Sadly, the Republicans that sponsored the bill seek to shift costs, not lower them just like the Democrats and President Obama did years before. With the ACA, it just happened that individuals and families like mine carried the burden in costs (please see prior posts). This time it will be the poor and the states. Yet, we all carry the costs in one form or another. I guess we all have to share in this misery before real reform takes place.
Interestingly, my first letter to the editors of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) written approximately six years ago referenced healthcare costs, which is as follows:
I agree with Dr. Donald Berwick in his op-ed article entitled, The Right Way to Reform Medicare, that we need to reduce our healthcare costs. He realizes that improving quality while reducing costs benefits consumers, but he woefully fails to see, understand and acknowledge, which is typical of most bureaucrats, that unfettered competition in a capitalistic economic system is the genesis of these consumer benefits, not more government regulation.
Upon reflection, I think what I wrote hits the nail on the head.
Tuesday, March 7, 2017
Border Adjustment Tax
Last week I wrote a letter to the editors of The Wall Street Journal (WSJ). Unlike a previous letter, which I shared in the prior post last week, this letter was not published in a print edition.
The letter referred to two opinion pieces in the February 27, 2017 print edition of the WSJ. The first article was entitled, The Illusory Flaws of 'Border Adjustment', and the second article was entitled, The 'Longshoreman Philosopher' Saw Trump Coming in 1970.
The author of the first article, Martin Feldstein, believed the tax would net the U.S. $1 trillion over ten years whereas the author of the second article, Reuvan Brenner, shared the wisdom of Eric Hoffer, a U.S. philosopher that lived last century.
Upon reading my letter you may noticed that I favored the latter article over the former and in doing so I hit on two common themes of mine, cause and effect and the national debt.
My letter entitled, The ‘Illusory Flaws’ in “The Illusory Flaws of ‘Border Adjustment’” is as follows:
Mr. Feldstein doth ignore the law of cause and effect and or he must think foreign exporters to the US are imbeciles. Based on what he wrote in his opinion piece entitled, The Illusory Flaws of ‘Border Adjustment’, I believe he may be one of the “alienated intellectual[s]” attributed to Eric Hoffer per Mr. Brenner in his opinion piece below Mr. Feldstein’s entitled, The ‘Longshoreman Philosopher’.
More specifically, if a US exporter to another country experienced a prompt and ongoing loss of gross margin of an additional 2000 bps or 20% ---and most likely a business loss (assuming operating margin in line with S&P 500 at ~ 700 bps or 7%), would he expect the exporter to do nothing? The exporter will eventually stop exporting (either going out of business or from a smart business decision) and or increase prices.
Big picture, a tax is restrictive and will eventually lead to a reduction in consumption (and a drag on GDP, which I would think he would know). Maybe this convoluted and faulty thinking led him and other advisers to persuade President Reagan to believe in what his immediate successor had previously termed ‘voodoo economics’ (aka supply-side economics) because, arguably, voodoo economics led to an expanding debt obligation that began on Reagan’s watch and still continues today, 30 years later (please see chart at metrocosm.com).
We have serious problems that need serious solutions, not tax and spend gimmicks that fail to ignore relevant impacts.
The letter referred to two opinion pieces in the February 27, 2017 print edition of the WSJ. The first article was entitled, The Illusory Flaws of 'Border Adjustment', and the second article was entitled, The 'Longshoreman Philosopher' Saw Trump Coming in 1970.
The author of the first article, Martin Feldstein, believed the tax would net the U.S. $1 trillion over ten years whereas the author of the second article, Reuvan Brenner, shared the wisdom of Eric Hoffer, a U.S. philosopher that lived last century.
Upon reading my letter you may noticed that I favored the latter article over the former and in doing so I hit on two common themes of mine, cause and effect and the national debt.
My letter entitled, The ‘Illusory Flaws’ in “The Illusory Flaws of ‘Border Adjustment’” is as follows:
Mr. Feldstein doth ignore the law of cause and effect and or he must think foreign exporters to the US are imbeciles. Based on what he wrote in his opinion piece entitled, The Illusory Flaws of ‘Border Adjustment’, I believe he may be one of the “alienated intellectual[s]” attributed to Eric Hoffer per Mr. Brenner in his opinion piece below Mr. Feldstein’s entitled, The ‘Longshoreman Philosopher’.
More specifically, if a US exporter to another country experienced a prompt and ongoing loss of gross margin of an additional 2000 bps or 20% ---and most likely a business loss (assuming operating margin in line with S&P 500 at ~ 700 bps or 7%), would he expect the exporter to do nothing? The exporter will eventually stop exporting (either going out of business or from a smart business decision) and or increase prices.
Big picture, a tax is restrictive and will eventually lead to a reduction in consumption (and a drag on GDP, which I would think he would know). Maybe this convoluted and faulty thinking led him and other advisers to persuade President Reagan to believe in what his immediate successor had previously termed ‘voodoo economics’ (aka supply-side economics) because, arguably, voodoo economics led to an expanding debt obligation that began on Reagan’s watch and still continues today, 30 years later (please see chart at metrocosm.com).
We have serious problems that need serious solutions, not tax and spend gimmicks that fail to ignore relevant impacts.
Monday, February 27, 2017
Published Letter To The Editors of the Wall Street Journal
Recently, I had my letter to the editors of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) dated 1/10 published in the 1/30 print edition of the WSJ. For those of you who do not have a subscription to the WSJ, which is required for the above hyperlink to work, I post my letter below.
I did not know that my letter was published until I read my name in print. It should go without saying, but I was ecstatic.
Hopefully, this will not be my only letter published as there are many that preceded this one and others that have followed. I will seek to post to this blog some of the more insightful letters in the coming weeks/months.
My letter as sent 1/10:
Mr. Zywicki and Mr Mane have forgotten the KISS principle, keep it simple, stupid. In trying to demonstrate their intellect in their jointly written opinion piece, they miss the mark.
This case should be determined by the Contract Clause of the Constitution. If the contract that states the merchant cannot apply surcharges is dropped due to a class action settlement (i.e. that contract language is nullified) then I would think that NY State cannot use an "interesting intellectual parlor game" to support the ban (even though the State might not realize that it is using that argument).
As such, it is highly possible the Supreme Court may rule in favor of the litigants even without buying into Expressions Hair's ‘behavioral economics’ argument.
Mr Zywicki and Mr Manne should be arguing for a free market economy that enables the customer to do what is best for them, chose to pay the charge, pay in cash or go to another establishment that does not impose the charge.
As you will see below, my letter as published by the WSJ 1/30 was somewhat sanitized:
Regarding Todd J. Zywicki and Geoffrey A. Manne’s “The Constitution Says Nothing About Behavioral Economics” (op-ed, Jan. 10): The case of New York’s ban on credit-card surcharges should be determined by the Contract Clause of the Constitution. If the contract that states the merchant cannot apply surcharges is dropped due to a class-action settlement (i.e., that contract language is nullified), then I would think that New York state cannot use an “interesting intellectual parlor game” to support the ban (even though the state might not realize that it is using that argument).
As such, it is highly possible the Supreme Court may rule in favor of the litigants even without buying into Expressions Hair Design’s “behavioral economics” argument.
Messrs. Zywicki and Manne should be arguing for a free, market economy that enables the customer to do what is best for him or her: Choose to pay the charge, pay in cash or go to another establishment that does not impose the charge.
I did not know that my letter was published until I read my name in print. It should go without saying, but I was ecstatic.
Hopefully, this will not be my only letter published as there are many that preceded this one and others that have followed. I will seek to post to this blog some of the more insightful letters in the coming weeks/months.
My letter as sent 1/10:
Mr. Zywicki and Mr Mane have forgotten the KISS principle, keep it simple, stupid. In trying to demonstrate their intellect in their jointly written opinion piece, they miss the mark.
This case should be determined by the Contract Clause of the Constitution. If the contract that states the merchant cannot apply surcharges is dropped due to a class action settlement (i.e. that contract language is nullified) then I would think that NY State cannot use an "interesting intellectual parlor game" to support the ban (even though the State might not realize that it is using that argument).
As such, it is highly possible the Supreme Court may rule in favor of the litigants even without buying into Expressions Hair's ‘behavioral economics’ argument.
Mr Zywicki and Mr Manne should be arguing for a free market economy that enables the customer to do what is best for them, chose to pay the charge, pay in cash or go to another establishment that does not impose the charge.
As you will see below, my letter as published by the WSJ 1/30 was somewhat sanitized:
Regarding Todd J. Zywicki and Geoffrey A. Manne’s “The Constitution Says Nothing About Behavioral Economics” (op-ed, Jan. 10): The case of New York’s ban on credit-card surcharges should be determined by the Contract Clause of the Constitution. If the contract that states the merchant cannot apply surcharges is dropped due to a class-action settlement (i.e., that contract language is nullified), then I would think that New York state cannot use an “interesting intellectual parlor game” to support the ban (even though the state might not realize that it is using that argument).
As such, it is highly possible the Supreme Court may rule in favor of the litigants even without buying into Expressions Hair Design’s “behavioral economics” argument.
Messrs. Zywicki and Manne should be arguing for a free, market economy that enables the customer to do what is best for him or her: Choose to pay the charge, pay in cash or go to another establishment that does not impose the charge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)