Tag Archives: Free Market

How We Payed For Healthcare In The Past

There was a time when the government didn’t tend to the care of her citizens like we do now.  I was researching another post or comment or something and came across this:

While the health care community and academics searched for a single insurance plan for delivering health care, the absence of regulation left individual Americans free to solve the problem on their own. They proceeded to do so, aided in the effort by a number of medical entrepreneurs.

In spite of the price increases, most people still paid for medical care out of their own pockets.  Estimated health expenditures in 1929 were $3,649 million. Of that, consumers paid $2,937 million, public sources paid $495 million, and philanthropy paid $217 million.

Employer plans covered only a tiny minority of people. Most sickness insurance was provided by mutual benefit associations unrelated to work—fraternal societies like the Loyal Order of Moose, the Knights and Ladies of
Security, the Ladies of the Maccabees, and the Société Française de Bienfaisance Mutuelle, which built San Francisco’s French Hospital in 1852. According to Stewart, there were thousands of fraternal societies operating in New York’s Lower East Side at the beginning of the 1900s. Existing for the benefit of their members and offering benefits that were not contingent on employment, many of the societies “employed or contracted with physicians to care for dues-paying members for as little as $1 to $2 per year per member. In some eastern and southern cities, a third to a half of some ethnic groups depended on these organizations for medical care. In New Orleans 88% of the entire population was said to be covered by some form of prepaid ‘contract medicine,’ also known as ‘lodge medicine’ by 1888.”

Historian David Beito estimates that in 1910 at least one-third of adult males belonged to fraternal societies that provided nearly every service of the modern welfare state “including orphanages, hospitals, job exchanges, homes for the elderly, and scholarship programs.”  Fraternal societies had a number of competitors including “commercialgroup plans, government workmen’s compensation programs, trade unions and industrial unions, company-sponsored mutual benefit societies, and other fraternal orders that provided life insurance or non-stipulated (discretionary) relief.”

Before the government intervened to solve our healthcare crisis, we were doing it ourselves.  We banded together, formed our own organizations and took care of each other.

However, there was one thing going FOR those social organizations that is missing from the government run programs; accountability:

The fact is that the fraternal societies knew their members gave them an advantage in issuing disability and sickness insurance. Lodges had home visiting committees that helped uncover false claims and one or two week waiting periods requiring members applying for aid to shoulder some of the financial load. Unlike many of the public proposals, the societies also had behavioral requirements that made life less attractive while receiving payments. Emery
reports that fraternal groups could require that “members receiving benefits could not drink or gamble and in some cases were not allowed to be away from their residence after dark.”

The fraternal societies were made up of friends, neighbors and associates.  Further, they worked to prevent fraud and ensure that a life of leisure while accepting benefits wasn’t allowed.

A sad cry from where we are today.

 

Fire Departments And Homeowner Insurance

A few years ago the fire department in South Fulton, TN made national news when rushed to the scene of a house fire and —

Let the thing burn to the ground.

It turns out that the family hadn’t paid their $75 annual fire protection fee:

Firefighters aren’t afraid to break down windows and doors to douse flames, but a Tennessee family’s failure to pay a $75 fee stopped firefighters dead in their tracks last week as a home burned to the ground.

South Fulton, Tenn., firefighters stood on the sidelines, watching as flames engulfed Gene Cranick’s Obion County home. They refused to help because Cranick had not paid an annual “pay to spray” subscription fee.

“I just forgot to pay my $75,” homeowner Gene Cranick said. “I did it last year, the year before. … It slipped my mind.”

The city of South Fulton charges that $75 fire protection fee to rural residents who live outside the city limits. When a household has not paid the fee, firefighters are required by law to not respond.

It turns out that when you live within the city limits you pay taxes that support things like fire departments.  But when you live outside those city limits, and avoid paying those taxes, you do not get to enjoy things that those taxes pay for.  Things like fire stations.

The outrage was all the rage at the time.  My liberal talk show hosts couldn’t stop talking about it for days.

Not surprisingly, I took the Libertarian approach:

If you want fire station protection, you should pay for it; if you don’t, then don’t.

Continue reading

Food And Medical Care

During the hearing of Obamacare, the news was full of analysis.  One of those pieces, in the “USA Today”, made a point that food is more of a basic need to people than healthcare:

A brief submitted by 215 economists argues that food is even more basic to survival than health care…

I was struck by this last night as I was cleaning out some of my “stack” in my office last night.

See, the food delivery market, while not perfectly so, is a free market example of how goods can be distributed efficiently.  Based on demand and the profit motive, food stuffs are delivered to a literal market where individual shoppers are allowed to “ration” themselves based, in part, by how much money they have and what types of services they want.

For example, in my market I can by generic chicken soup, Ramen noodles and rice.  Or, I can walk 50 feet away and purchase hand rolled sushi, fillet mignon, $60 wine and lobster.

As a real example of the power of markets I picked up this flier:

For $5, this profit driven market is offering a meal that feeds 4 people, perhaps more if the kids are younger.

If medical care were subject to the same market forces you would see the same thing happen with the cost of medical care.  In the same way, if you allowed health insurance to be impacted by the same market forces, you would see prices of health insurance react in the same manner.

It’s only when government intercedes, by mandating acupuncture coverage, or by restricting the sale of insurance polices across state lines, that you see the price of a good or service go up.

How Rich Are You

With all the talk from Obama about the rich, the elite and the 1%, I often wonder, “Do we really have it that bad?”

What might we use as a measurement to gauge whether or not we really are better off.  The media is full of comparisons, we often hear the reports that the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer.  That the middle class is under attack and is losing; indeed, shrinking.

But is it true?

Continue reading

Free Market: Microsoft Office

The latest iteration in the market delivering goods and services at the lowest price possible:

This week, Onlive Inc., in Palo Alto, Calif., is releasing an app that brings the full, genuine Windows versions of the key Office productivity apps—Word, Excel and PowerPoint—to the iPad. And it’s free. These are the real programs. They look and work just like they do on a real Windows PC. They let you create or edit genuine Word documents, Excel spreadsheets and PowerPoint presentations.

When allowed to roam free, the market will solve virtually any problem you can think of.

 

Government Regulations: Costing Jobs

I have long held the position that incentives matter.  Further, I hold that government cannot completely control all reactions to incentives.  That is, when a government body imposes regulations upon a population with the desire to guide correct action, the government body cannot anticipate all reasonable reactions.

Incentives matter.

And so, in an effort to regulate mortgage originators, the government is forcing corporations to leave that segment of the business:

MetLife, the nation’s largest life insurer, announced Tuesday that it would close its home mortgage-origination operation, costing the company at least $90 million. Most of the 4,300 employees at the unit will lose their jobs.

“The majority will no longer have a position,” said John Calagna, a spokesman for MetLife. Most of the workers at the business are based in Irving, Tex., Mr. Calagna said.

MetLife said in October that it was seeking a buyer for its mortgage unit after announcing plans to sell deposit-gathering operations to reduce federal oversight. The company reached a deal last month to sell about $7.5 billion of its bank’s deposits to General Electric.

The Federal Reserve, which oversees MetLife because of its size and banking operations, rejected its plan last year to raise its dividend and resume share buybacks.

Because of the Federal Government and the regulations it imposes, MetLife will now shed 4,300 jobs.

To be clear:  Government regulations cost the economy 4,300 jobs.  No outsourcing.  No downsizing.  No automation.  No nothing.  Pure and simple regulation avoidance.

And for added enjoyment, the NYT article goes on to mention the dollar amount that this will cost MetLife:

MetLife will continue to service current home-loan clients and offer reverse mortgages, the company said. The wind-down may cost as much as $110 million, according to the statement.

In addition to shedding 4,300 jobs, MetLife is WILLINGLY taking an action that will cost it $110 million dollars.  The cost of the regulation is AT LEAST $110 million!  AT LEAST!

Is there any legitimate argument that can be made that this administration is building an environment conducive to business and the free market?

 

 

Government Mandates: Biofuel Additives

I’m a big believer in markets.  Which is another way of saying that I’m a big believer in incentives.  As the demand for lemonade goes up, the demand for sugar, waters and lemons go up.  As the demand for sugar, water and lemons go up, the price of those items goes up as well.  As the price f sugar, water and lemons go up, so do the price of the finished products that also contain those ingredients.  At this point there will be conflict.  Conflict as the rising price of two or more products compete in the market.  In time, over time, the demand of lemonade will level out as the cost hits a limiting level.

Even more fun is the impact that these higher costs of goods have down stream.  As the price of lemons goes up, farmers increase lemon  production.  They do this by engaging useful farmland into lemon trees.  By doing this, they stop the productive activity they WERE engaging in as they move to higher and higher lemon production.  Say, for example, peaches.  Lemon trees are planted in favor of peach trees and we see the ration of lemons to peaches increase.  This leads to price fluctuations between peaches and lemons.  As these forces are spread through geography and time, the price will reflect the demand of the society on both peaches and lemons.

And this will be natural.  This is what allows most people in a group, even a large group, to get what it wants.  Are there going to be winners?  Sure, there will be people who love lemons and hate peaches and will benefit by the increase production of lemons.  Losers?  You betcha!  Peach lovers but lemon haters may lament the rising prices and availability of peaches.  But on the whole, the demands and wants of the society are served.

Can you image the infrastructure required, the sheer magnitude of size required, if the government wanted to set up an office that measure and dictated the proper allocation of lemon and peach production?  For us in America it is relatively uncommon.  But in Soviet Russia, not so much.  In an effort to make sure the economy was controlled and the people fed, the State dictated means of production.  And no one was fed.

Point.  Sorry.

So, I get frustrated when I see the government mandate something.  Mandate health insurance.  Mandate light bulbs.  Mandate farm subsidies.  All of it.  All of it creates a ripple affect down the line resulting in unwanted consequences.   But I have to admit, when the state mandates a product that doesn’t exist, I am more amused than frustrated:

WASHINGTON — When the companies that supply motor fuel close the books on 2011, they will pay about $6.8 million in penalties to the Treasury because they failed to mix a special type of biofuel into their gasoline and diesel as required by law.

But there was none to be had. Outside a handful of laboratories and workshops, the ingredient, cellulosic biofuel, does not exist.

In 2012, the oil companies expect to pay even higher penalties for failing to blend in the fuel, which is made from wood chips or the inedible parts of plants like corncobs. Refiners were required to blend 6.6 million gallons into gasoline and diesel in 2011 and face a quota of 8.65 million gallons this year.

“It belies logic,” Charles T. Drevna, the president of the National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association, said of the 2011 quota. And raising the quota for 2012 when there is no production makes even less sense, he said.

The government is mandating a product that doesn’t exist.

Classic example of government heavy handedness.

 

Merit Based Teacher Salary

I grew up the son of a teacher.  Then I became a teacher.  Though, to be fair, I only lasted a single year.  It was a small town, a “negotiation” year and I really didn’t like the whole incentive thing.  As a result of the negotiations, which were conducted by a small negotiation team made up of men, the compensation system in the contract changed.  Teachers are paid based on a grid.  New rookie teachers with no more education than a bachelors degree start in the upper left hand corner of that grid.  For every year of experience, they get to “step” down the grid and get a raise.  The further down you go, the more you make.  Teachers can also move across the grid.  They do this by obtaining more education.  When they acquire enough, they are said to change “lanes” and move from the left to the right.

The highest paid teachers are in the lower right corner of the grid.

I lost faith when I realized, very quickly, that I would never catch up to the old crummy teachers I worked with.  And when that negotiating team reduced the number of lanes from 9 to 3 in exchange for higher coaches salaries [the negotiation team consisted of mostly coaches].

I now have no ties to education save that my kids are in school.  Further, I am in an occupation where I am not in a union.  My continued employment is dictated by market conditions combined with my ability to produce value for my bosses.  Further, my salary is determined by the success of the firm and my contribution to it.

The better I do the more I make and the stronger my job security is.  The converse is true.

It is my love of teachers and the role they play in the development of our kids AND the power of market based incentives that makes me love this story of merit based teacher’s salaries:

WASHINGTON — During her first six years of teaching in this city’s struggling schools, Tiffany Johnson got a series of small raises that brought her annual salary to $63,000, from about $50,000. This year, her seventh, Ms. Johnson earns $87,000.

That latest 38 percent jump, unheard of in public education, came after Ms. Johnson was rated “highly effective” two years in a row under Washington’s new teacher evaluation system. Those ratings also netted her back-to-back bonuses totaling $30,000.

In my calculus, the district accomplished two things:

  1. It created a massive incentive to perform.
  2. It created a massive incentive to continue teaching.

“Lots of teachers leave the profession, but this has kept me invested to stay,” said Ms. Johnson, 29, who is a special-education teacher at the Ron H. Brown Middle School in Northeast Washington. “I know they value me.”

I love this statement:  “This has kept me invested to stay.”

EXACTLY!

When an organization values an employee it helps retain that employee.  When that value takes the additional value of added pay, that retention is even greater!

On the other hand, there is the opposite phenomena  , one that I consider more dangerous to the education of our kids; the incentives provided to the poorest performing teachers:

Under the system, known as Impact Plus, teachers rated “highly effective” earn bonuses ranging from $2,400 to $25,000. Teachers who get that rating two years in a row are eligible for a large permanent pay increase to make their salary equivalent to that of a colleague with five more years of experience and a more advanced degree.

Those rewards come with risk: to receive the bonuses and raises, teachers must sign away some job security provisions outlined in their union contract. About 20 percent of the teachers eligible for the raises this year and 30 percent of those eligible for bonuses turned them down rather than give up those protections.

There are teachers who are SO concerned with losing their jobs that they turned down the money.  Turned. Down. The. Money.

Two things:

  1. These are teachers we should work to remove.
  2. These teachers WERE compensated for their labor.  The fact that they value job security MORE than the money does NOT mean that they didn’t receive anything of value.

I look forward to continued market based, merit based teacher compensation.

Public vs Private Regulations

As part of legislation, Congress made it illegal for banks to charge a certain percentage to merchants when a debit card was swiped.  As a result, the merchant was able to retain more of the purchase price, but the bank lost a segment of its revenue; profits were threatened.

Because banks don’t enjoy profit margins significantly above the average, they have to work to retain whatever margin they DO have.  This means that the lost revenue from debit card swipes paid via the merchant would have to be made up elsewhere.

Banks began to end free checking.  They even began to add $5.00 fees for using a debit card for purchases.  The banks changed the way and manner in which they billed individuals based on indiscriminate legislation.

Now consider Verizon.  The telecommunications giant introduced a $2.00 fee for electronic billing to certain customers.  There was o regulation that forced this move, no change in laws.  Verizon simply felt that they need to move revenue in a specific segment.

Customers were enraged.  And Verizon changed course and ended the charge:

Verizon Wireless bowed to a torrent of criticism on Friday and reversed a day-old plan to impose a $2 bill-paying fee that would have applied to only some customers.

The consumer vitriol, which cascaded across Twitter and onto blogs and petitions all around the Web, struck a chord with a company that was clearly not expecting it.

“The company made the decision in response to customer feedback about the plan, which was designed to improve the efficiency of those transactions,” Verizon Wireless said in a statement referring to the reversal.

Companies risk capital in an effort to produce a product or service that the consumer wants.  In return for this risk, investors desire a return on capital.  If they fail to obtain this return, they move their capital somewhere else.  Therefore, it is incumbent for a company to look to improve revenues in any way they can.  And if those methods fail in the market place, shrewd companies will adapt.  Inefficient companies will fail.

And all of this is achieved through the free market.  Not one of government control.

Government And Markets

A free and open market will settle on the demand for goods or services.  As the government adds requirements to that market, the price will change and adjust to accommodate the new cost of that good or service.  For example, if you wanna house, one can be built for you at such and such a cost.  However, when the requirement, however reasonable, that the house have plumbing is added, the cost of that house is going to go up.

I’m not claiming that we allow houses to be built without plumbing.  I’m simply stating that when we DO make that requirement, we price homes above what some segment of the population can afford.

This is true of all things.  And school lunch is no exception:

It’s lunchtime at Van Nuys High School and students stream into the cafeteria to check out the day’s fare: black bean burgers, tostada salad, fresh pears and other items on a new healthful menu introduced this year by the Los Angeles Unified School District.

But Iraides Renteria and Mayra Gutierrez don’t even bother to line up. Iraides said the school food previously made her throw up, and Mayra calls it “nasty, rotty stuff.”

And why is the school cafeteria serving lunch that students don’t wanna eat?

Earlier this year, the district got rid of chocolate and strawberry milk, chicken nuggets, corn dogs, nachos and other food high in fat, sugar and sodium. Instead, district chefs concocted such healthful alternatives as vegetarian curries and tamales, quinoa salads and pad Thai noodles.

The district, government, tried to regulate the market.  No longer could schools sell food that kids wanted to eat, rather, the school was forced to sell food that the regulators decided was fit for the kids.  Now, do I think that fresh pears and pad Thai is better for you than corn dogs and nachos?  Hell yeah!  In fact, I’ve eaten many many more portions of pears and pad Thai than corn dogs and nachos in the last, what, 20 years.  I fact, I can’t remember the last time I had a corn dog.

Point is, independent of the fact that mandating healthy food is good or not, when the regulation is applied, the market shifts.  It adjusts.

Many of the meals are being rejected en masse. Participation in the school lunch program has dropped by thousands of students. Principals report massive waste, with unopened milk cartons and uneaten entrees being thrown away. Students are ditching lunch, and some say they’re suffering from headaches, stomach pains and even anemia.

Waste.  And unhealthy behavior.

But do you know what ELSE happened?

At many campuses, an underground market for chips, candy, fast-food burgers and other taboo fare is thriving.

The market adjusted and is now providing the very thing the regulations were meant to diminish.

The lesson?

The market will win.