The View from Right Field

#MedicareForAll – How It Will Really Work

While New Zealand has been in the news for other reasons lately, a hearing before the health select committee of the New Zealand Parliament last week should be of interest to those who think “Medicare for All,” or some other form of government-run single-payer health plan, is the answer to our problems with health care.

At the hearing, women with advanced breast cancer asked for pressure to be brought on Pharmac, the government-run drug-buying agency, to fully fund two additional drugs for breast cancer, Kadcyla and Palbociclib (also known as Ibrance).

The pleas of the women were very moving.  One of the women said that Ibrance was a “game-changer” in other countries for conditions like hers.  She asked why women in New Zealand had to travel to Malaysia or move to England or Australia to get access to cheaper life-extending drugs.  Another woman said that she was alive only because she had paid for the drug herself.  “This would … be impossible if I had to rely on Pharmac.” 

Jacinda Ardern Gets It Right

In the New Zealand parliament today, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern got it right with respect to how to respond to the murderer and terrorist who killed 50 people at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, on Friday.  This is from the New Zealand Herald:

“Ardern told Parliament the Australian man accused of carrying out the atrocity was seeking notoriety.

‘That is why you will never hear me mention his name.  He is a terrorist.  He is a criminal.  He is an extremist.  But he will, when I speak, be nameless. 

The Problem with Models

In her Notebook column in Saturday’s Financial Times,¹ Gillian Tett notes that auto loans, including “subprime” auto loans, have risen sharply over the past year.  In addition, the number of delinquent car loans, especially in the subprime category, are rising, too.  In fact, a million more Americans are delinquent on their car loans now than in 2010.

In trying to come up with a reason for the increase, which has apparently left some observers baffled, Ms. Tett says:

“But there is yet another possible explanation: consumer behavior might be shifting and, in the process, upending economists’ projections about default, as subprime mortgages did a decade ago.”

Ms. Tett notes that economists missed the subprime mortgage collapse because, inter alia, their models assumed consumers would default on the loans in a particular way: first, credit cards; second, auto loans; and last, mortgages.  But that wasn’t what happened.  People defaulted on the mortgages first.  Ms. Tett suggests this was because it was more acceptable to default on a mortgage but people needed their credit cards to live.  I would say it slightly differently: People started defaulting on their mortgages first because they realized that, in many states, it took a long time for people to get evicted from their house, while the effects of defaulting on their credit card or auto loan were more immediate.

Warren Buffet Says Don’t Invest in States Like Illinois

Warren Buffet is one of the Democrats’ favorite billionaires.  Mr. Buffet was a big fan of Barack Obama.  When President Obama was in office, Mr. Buffet argued that taxes on the wealthy were too low and complained that he paid a lower tax rate than his secretary.

I wonder, however, if Illinois’s new Democratic governor, a billionaire himself, feels quite so friendly to Mr. Buffet these days.  According to an editorial in The Wall Street Journal today:

“In a Feb. 25 interview on CNBC, Mr. Buffett warned investors to avoid states with large unfunded pension liabilities. He said he couldn’t be sure how such states would try to bring in more revenue – whether by raising corporate taxes, personal income taxes, or a combination. But he had no doubt the taxes are coming.

A Tragedy in Christchurch

You can find my most recent post on my other blog, “A Different New Zealand,” here.

If 2016 Was the “Presidential Election from He**,” What Will 2020 Be?

Actually, the question may be “Isn’t 2020 That Way Already?”  It seems pretty clear that Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee – if he decides to run, but back to that in a moment.  First, the Democrats.

The Democratic contest seems to be a race to see who can get as close as possible to Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, who would, based on publicity levels in the MSM, have the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination wrapped up by now if not for a group of old white men in Philadelphia in 1787 who set the minimum age for president at 35.¹  On the other hand, we wouldn’t have Ms. AOC to kick us around if those same old white men had set the same age, i.e., 30, for the House of Representatives as they did for the Senate.² 

A Few Comments on Where We Are Going With Our Defense Policy

An article in last week’s Economist, “Bringing out the big guns,” described the shift in direction that is taking place in the U.S. military as it “prepares for life after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.”  Some of the changes are good and necessary.  Others are more questionable.  Let me quote some sections from the article and then comment on them.

“In January 2018 the Trump administration published its National Defence Strategy (NDS).  Officials lamented that nearly two decades of whack-a-mole against insurgents and jihadists had eroded the country’s military edge, resulting in exhausted and under-trained units armed for the wrong enemy.  So the NDS decreed that America would henceforth focus on ‘long-term, strategic competition between nations’ – namely, China and Russia.”

If the military was “exhausted and under-trained,” it was because it wasn’t big enough and was not given enough money for the task(s) it was being asked to do under the George W. Bush and Obama administrations.  It is understandable that the military can be stretched for some period of time.  Emergencies happen and the military has to respond.  But to be stretched for almost two decades is a choice – a choice to not properly fund the military.  And to continually ask the people in the military to do more than they should have to do because you don’t want to spend more money on defense is wrong.

Foreign Policy After Trump: A Return to Normal or Is There a New Normal?

Commentators left, right, and center are explaining, and complaining, about why Donald Trump’s summit with Kim Jong Un, Supreme Leader of North Korea, failed to reach an agreement.  Cutting through all of the commentary, the main reason is because President Trump is himself.  Maybe an agreement could have been reached if President Trump did things differently, in terms of preparation, etc.  But complaining about President Trump being himself is silly, at least at this point.  He is what he is.  He is not going to change, no matter how much some of us might wish it.

And things are going to continue as they have been.  For example, in January, I asked if we were bugging out of Afghanistan because of what President Trump said then, but now it appears we are staying.  Similarly, in December, President Trump said we were leaving Syria (which is why Defense Secretary James Mattis resigned), but now it looks like we may be keeping some troops there, after all. 

With President Trump, there are times when we don’t know, from one day to the next, what our policies are.  And we have almost two years to go.  Of course, while some people see that as a long time, others look at it and say we can elect a new president in less than two years – and then everything will be fine again.