Follow the Bouncing Buck
The year's highlights in blame shifting
Two weeks ago, writing in The Washington Post, Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius argued that Americans must be forced to buy government-approved medical coverage to prevent "unfair cost-shifting" by uninsured patients. They neglected to mention that the federal government mandates such cost shifting by requiring hospitals to treat all comers, regardless of their ability to pay.
Holder and Sebelius also misleadingly implied that the individual insurance mandate is aimed at addressing uncompensated care, which according to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation represents less than 3 percent of health care spending. The main reason ObamaCare compels people to buy insurance is not so they can pay their own bills but so they can pay other people's bills. Since the new system requires insurers to cover everyone while forbidding them to charge sicker policyholders more, it needs to conscript people who hardly use health care so they can subsidize the expenses of people who use it a lot.
The Obama administration's refusal to acknowledge that coercion begets coercion when the government meddles in the health care market was one of the year's most memorable examples of blame shifting. Here are a few more:
Tiny Toy Terror. This month, with help from the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Monet Parham, "a mother of two from Sacramento" (who happens to work for the California Department of Public Health), filed a class action lawsuit against McDonald's, complaining that the fast food chain "uses toys as bait to induce her kids to clamor to go to McDonald's and to develop a preference for nutritionally poor Happy Meals." In the spirit of former Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin—who once declared that "you can always turn the television off and, of course, block the channels you don't want…but why should you have to?"—Parham concedes that she can say no to her kids but resents the necessity. "As other busy, working moms and dads know," she says, "we have to say 'no' to our young children so many times, and McDonald's makes that so much harder to do."
Four Loko Madness. The Food and Drug Administration banned the fruity malt beverage in November amid a moral panic about a product that grandstanding politicians denounced as "a plague," a "witch's brew," and "a death wish disguised as an energy drink." Alarmist press coverage blamed Four Loko for making people break into homes, crash stolen vehicles, shoot themselves, and contemplate murder.
Mooting the Messenger. President Obama called Citizens United v. FEC, the January decision in which the Supreme Court lifted restrictions on political speech by corporations, "a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics." Later he pre-emptively blamed the ruling for letting "shadowy groups with harmless-sounding names" trick people into voting against Democrats. Obama thereby ignored the ways in which his big-government policies, including stimulus spending, bank and automaker bailouts, and expanded federal control of health care, simultaneously invited special-interest lobbying and alienated voters.
Government-Guaranteed Drug Dangers. This year drug warriors repeatedly warned the public about hidden hazards in psychoactive substances sold by unscrupulous traffickers, including a veterinary medicine used to cut cocaine and the obscure chemicals that supply the high in quasi-legal alternatives to pot and speed. They never acknowledged their own role in creating such hazards by enforcing drug bans that make quality unreliable and drive people to potentially dangerous substitutes.
Scope or Grope. The Transportation Security Administration invited travelers to blame Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian accused of trying to blow up an airplane by igniting explosive powder sewn into his underwear, for the ritual humiliation of routine full-body scans backed up by newly aggressive pat-downs. But the new scanners probably would not have discovered Abdulmutallab's underwear bomb because they are bad at detecting thinly packed, shape-hugging explosives. The specious excuse suggests TSA officials are determined to cover their butts while making us show ours.
Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason and a nationally syndicated columnist.
© Copyright 2010 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Good morning reason!
Love that racist pic. It rivals the caption on my lawn jockey.
I'll bite, how's the pic racist? (not the lawn jockey obviously)
"you can always turn the television off and, of course, block the channels you don't want?but why should you have to?"
because you're a FUCKING PARENT! Sorry choir, preacher is agitated today.
^^this^^
You stole the words from my finger tips.
GoNavy|12.29.10 @ 7:43AM|#
was in reply to Madbiker|12.29.10 @ 7:24AM|#
None of these seem like passing the buck. They seem wrong-headed, unintended, maybe even stupid. But none of these are really "passing the buck".
How is the McDonald's example NOT an example of passing the buck? It seems to me that parents complaining that they shouldn't have to do the job of parenting is about as prime an example as you can get.
No, I think it's an example of imaginary buck passing. That is, they only pretend parents are struggling to have to say no in that case. From what I've seen in McDonald's, the toys are a convenience to parents, a chatchka to keep the kid quiet while they sit & eat. No parents were complaining about this. The makers of the edict have their own agenda, and they're deflecting criticism by pretending parents had passed the buck to them.
Govt Gone Wild !
"we have to say 'no' to our young children so many times, and McDonald's makes that so much harder to do."
Sure, saying "no" is hard, but delivering a firm backhand, is easy.
...when no one is looking, of course.
"toys as bait"?!?! Has anyone seen these toys lately? They're shit toys that wouldn't get a second glance @ toysrus or target. It's the addicting food that draws the kids in for crissake. No kid is sitting around dreaming about the latest pixar shit-toy at McD and uses it as an excuse to bug their parents to drop in.
The toy needs to survive and be interesting only for as long as it takes to eat lunch. It's not like they're sought after by older children who might be toy collectors. From what I've seen they're there primarily for pre-school children, some only recently into solid food, which is why they offer some specifically for children under 3 YO (no choke hazard). These are children who don't even know to ask for a toy; their parent is just relieved they get one that may occupy them for long enough for lunch or dinner to be over. They tend to get thrown away with the used napkins. The whole business of the toys being a lure for the children is a phony, made-up "concern", like flavored cigarets.
Jeebus H, Jacob! How could you miss the obvious - and correct - source of all this evul?
"I blame Bush."
You're welcome.
Everybody come on and hop into the handbasket! Wheeee! We're on our way!
The blame for all this shit is with the American idiots....they elected the fucking idiots. Idiots electing idiots. What could be more American, more democratic???
That doesn't mean they like them. If someone drags you into an alley and tells they're going to fuck you in either the mouth or the ass, but it's your choice, taking advantage of that choice to mitigate the damage does not constitute consent.
That's the stupidest anal ogy I have seen in a long time. What choice mitigates damage? And in your anal ogy the most damage will be to the fucker not the fuckee. The fuckers time on this planet will be very short!
"What choice mitigates damage?"
Personal preference, I suppose. Surely one consider one outcome worse than the other, although both are terrible.
"And in your anal ogy the most damage will be to the fucker not the fuckee."
More damage is done to the rapist than the victim?
The victim can bite it off.
Were you unable to read the last sentence or are you really that fucking stupid??? And it is still the fucking, dumbest analogy I have seen in a long time.
I sure as hell didn't vote for these fucking idiots.
When the gov't was chained down by the Constitution, it didn't matter as much who was in the White House. Since those chains have been broken, everything is up for grabs.
Good point.
As an alcohol enthusiast, the Four Loko thing really pissed me off, even if it's cheap skunk beer.
That kind of logic reeks of Reefer Madness mentality.
"Americans must be forced to buy government-approved medical coverage to prevent "unfair cost-shifting" by uninsured patients". ..... Isn't forcing us to buy government health care ..."unfair cost shifting"????? Oh, I guess it's ok because the government mandates it.
This is difficult. Have you read about the "adverse selection" problem? Asymmetrical knowledge about who is a good insurance risk can drive everyone out of the market, and they were trying to prevent this.
Freedom once meant being free to be responsible for the consequences of one's choices.
Now freedom means being free from choice, free from consequence, and free from responsibility.
Choice and consequence is slavery.
Even the government own lawyers don't think the individual mandate is needed to cover the expenses of the uninsured, since they explicitly argue that it is "necessary and proper" to the enforcement of the ban on exclusion of pre-existing conditions and risk based pricing. Their whole legal argument hinges on it being needed to enforce the insurance regulations, not to pay for the future healthcare expenses of the uninsured.
"letting "shadowy groups with harmless-sounding names" trick people into voting against Democrats."
I.e. the democratic congress critters?
According to the KFF:
In 2008, the average person who was uninsured for a full-year incurred $1,686 in total health care costs compared to $4,463 for the nonelderly with coverage. The uninsured will pay for about a third of this care out of pocket, totaling $30 billion in 2008. This includes the health care costs for those uninsured all year and the costs incurred during the months the part-year uninsured have no health coverage.
So why should the uninsured who CAN afford to pay for health insurance only pay 1/3 of their costs? You say that the amount of the federal budget spent on it is insignificant (would you say that about a federal program if you wanted to cut it?) but it IS significant to insured people who have to pay a higher percentage of the costs they incur than the uninsured do.
In short, I am in favor of making people who can afford to pay for health insurance do so instead of leaching off public funds. Everyone needs to see the doctor for check-ups. And if you are young and in perfect health, one day you will not be, so I would be in favor of a system that would eventually benefit you and everyone when they need it. If a person who has perfect health all his life and dies in his sleep ends up paying more than he gets back, effectively paying for coverage of say a poor person with cancer, so be it.
Hair extensions can really give you a very good look but you should be thoroughly aware of its pros and cons. People who have very feeble hair or no hair can go for hair plantations or permanent hair expansions but those who just want a new look or long hair can use the temporary methods. Ibeautyhair.com
Kobe Bryant Shoes
http://www.topgradeshop.com
http://www.louisvuitton.be/lou.....-p-88.html Its a very good post. I was very pleased to find this site. I wanted to thank you for this great read.
is good
Pretty good post. Click me, here you want. Try, try, try
I know I'm not beautiful, but everyday I hope you think that I am.
outlet
How about mbt kisumu sandals this one: there are X driving deaths a year- what % of driving deaths (or serious injuries) involve alcohol, or other intoxicating substances? kisumu 2 People are pretty darn good drivers when they are not impaired.
outlet
outlet
outlet
outlet
outlet
In reality,lebron 9 for sale by the time you drink the fourth beer your system has probably eliminated the first. Two beers with dinner will not get you arrested, even if you are tiny. More people need to have the opportunity kobe 7 cheetah for sale to drink and then drive on a simulator. Most people would not even consider driving over
ddddddddd
ddddddddd
so good!
good
The problem is that lebron 8 christmas for sale there's no good measure of "impairment" that corresponds to a probability of an accident. Standard psychomotor tests of impairment do not test driving habits. For instance almost *all* people over the age of 60 lebron 9 christmas for sale are "impaired" in terms of those tests, but these people do not have a higher accident rate
The problem is that lebron 8 south beach for sale there's no good measure of "impairment" that corresponds to a probability of an accident. Standard psychomotor tests of impairment do not test driving habits. For instance almost *all* people over the age of 60 lebron 9 south beach for sale are "impaired" in terms of those tests, but these people do not have a higher accident rate
good
but these people do not have a higher accident rate. lebron 8 south beach for sale Older people develop compensatory driving habits. Similarly, similar "impairment" while under the influence of alcohol as opposed to marijuana are associated with radically different probabilities of accidental injury.
impairment" that corresponds to a probability nike shox tl3 of an accident. Standard psychomotor tests of impairment do not test driving habits. For instance almost *all* people over the age of 60 are "impaired" in terms of those tests, oakely sunglasses but these people do not have a higher accident rate. Older people develop compensatory driving habits
Nice blog, its great article informative post, thanks for sharing it. Thanks for the information!
Application Facebook
I read your post and it was amazing , KEEP IT, great job.
Animal Logo Design
Awesome post!!! Really enjoyed this post. But I want more information on such valuable topic .
Click Here
wow it is beautiful this is a very nice blog thank you for sharing
Click Here
I accidentally read the article. This article very interesting and is significant . thanks a lot . website design austin tx
web design cost