TPPF COMMENTARY: More health care requires more choices

More health care requires more choices
By Kalese Hammonds

Texas has the highest ratio of uninsured residents in the country. With nearly one in four Texans uninsured, legislators and other stakeholders tirelessly look for the silver bullet to guarantee that everyone has access to health care. Many have concluded that the answer is lies in getting as many of the uninsured covered as possible.

Strategies for reducing Texas’ five million uninsured have come from a variety of angles, but most involve additional government assistance and impose a greater burden on taxpayers. The more modest proposals expand existing programs and increase outreach to eligible citizens, while the extreme measures would require every individual to buy health insurance and force the government to subsidize those who couldn’t afford it.

Others have proposed a backdoor approach by addressing the cost of health insurance, but such attempts have been just as heavy-handed. Suggestions that the state provide reinsurance for companies that pay out expensive claims would place an unnecessary burden on the state and taxpayers, while imposing requirements that would force insurers to forego risk-adjusted premiums in favor of a community-rated pricing method would make health insurance less expensive for risky individuals but more expensive for everyone else.

Early results from these reforms have been less than stellar. In Massachusetts, the individual mandate and state subsidies have led to massive cost overruns. The newly insured have flooded doctors’ offices, creating a shortage of providers and forcing doctors to either turn down patients or put them on a waiting list.

What Massachusetts has found – and what advocates for the uninsured fail to recognize – is that health insurance does not necessarily mean access to health care. In fact, health insurance is partially responsible for the continuing decay of our health care system. Its desensitization of consumers from the cost of health care has created an environment that encourages overutilization.

As the demand for health care services has risen, so have their prices; proof that the economic principles of supply and demand do, in fact, apply to health care.

For those who question the viability of free markets and competition in health care, they need only look at the field of Lasik eye surgery. Because consumers pay the full cost of their procedures, competition has led to lower prices and an abundance of providers.

Experience teaches us that the best way to lower prices is to pump more products into the market, allowing consumers to decide which of the options gives them the most bang for their buck.

Primary health care services would benefit from a similarly competitive environment where a broader range of providers would afford consumers more choices at varying price levels. Nurse practitioners and retail clinics offer basic health care at lower prices and during more convenient times, giving consumers alternatives to expensive doctor visits and crowded waiting rooms that are only open during work hours.

Unfortunately, Texas laws restrict these alternatives by tying the number of nurse practitioners to the number of physicians, and limiting the services they can provide. Other Texas laws that ban the practice of corporate medicine and place unnecessary regulations on health care facilities make it difficult for Texans to have a wide range of choices for health care. The majority of health care consumers are trapped in a system that gives them few options and even less information about the price they are paying for services.

Just like getting health insurance for everyone will not cure our health care system, providing less expensive alternatives to current health care is not the silver bullet either. But it is a solution that would not place additional burdens on taxpayers, require expansion of government programs, or increase insurance premiums for people who already have it.

Giving consumers more choices would improve access to health care by providing individuals with more choices that would be affordable, regardless of insurance status.

Kalese Hammonds is a health care policy analyst at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Foundation debuts TexasHigherEd.com website

AUSTIN – The Texas Public Policy Foundation announced that it had created a new website, www.TexasHigherEd.com, to promote goals and specific reforms that will establish Texas as the outright leader in 21st century higher education.

“Texas can be the nation’s leader in higher education reform and provide a home to the best teachers, researchers, and students from around Texas and the nation,” Foundation president Brooke Rollins said. “This ambitious goal, however, requires a fundamental shift in higher education policy that puts students first.”

To support state elected policymakers, university system regents, and campus leaders in reform efforts, the Texas Public Policy Foundation created www.TexasHigherEd.com to provide important information about the cost and quality of higher education in Texas. It attempts to dispel the many myths that prevent our institutions of higher education from becoming the student-focused centers of learning that Texans should all demand.

Last month, the Foundation facilitated the Governor’s Higher Education Summit, an unprecedented dialogue between the regents from Texas’ public university systems and top education reformers from around the country. www.TexasHigherEd.com highlights the goals for improving Texas higher education that were discussed at the Summit:

• Measuring teacher efficiency and effectiveness through student evaluations;
• Requiring evidence of teaching skill for a majority of new tenure appointments;
• Supporting the creation of a new accrediting agency with results based on student learning and workforce readiness versus the number of books in a library or tenured professors with PhD’s;
• Recognizing and rewarding extraordinary teachers;
• Splitting teaching and research budgets to reward exceptional individuals in each area;
• Using “results-based” contracts with students to measure academic quality; and
• Putting state funding directly in the hands of the students through scholarships.

The Texas Public Policy Foundation is a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin, Texas.

- 30 -

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Texas PolicyCast: A History of Lawsuit Reform in Texas, Part 1

Last month, the Texas Public Policy Foundation released the report, "A History of Lawsuit Reform in Texas," authored by TPPF Senior Fellow, The Honorable Joe Nixon. Besides being an accomplished litigator, Nixon served six terms in the Texas House of Representatives, the last two as Chairman of its Civil Practices Committee. In this two-part interview, we look at the evolution of Texas' civil justice system and the actions taken in recent years to strike a fairer balance between plaintiffs and defendants.

The Texas PolicyCast is the weekly audio magazine of the Texas Public Policy Foundation. A new edition is posted each Thursday morning. To listen to the current or previous editions online, please visit the Texas PolicyCast page at www.TexasPolicy.com. You can also subscribe using your RSS reader or iTunes.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

TPPF COMMENTARY: The importance of business friendliness

Earlier this week, Comptroller Susan Combs issued preliminary estimates on the first batch of receipts from Texas' new margins tax. While the elected officials wring their hands over whether the tax brings in as much revenue as expected, TPPF Senior Fellow William Murchison writes in this week's commentary that they ought to also concern themselves with how the tax affects its long-standing positive relationship with businesses.

----------

The importance of business friendliness

By William Murchison

We understand desirability well enough in human terms. Don’t we?

Want a friend, be a friend, is the rule. Figure out the relationship in terms of mutual satisfactions. OK?

Why is it so hard, in that case, to apply the rule of thumb to governments and the ways they order, or disorder, their relationships with businesses whose job-creating, tax-paying potential they can’t live without? A state (or a city or a county or a country) that wants to be loved, economically speaking, must make itself lovable, by implementation of business policies that business loves.

Which brings us, with some satisfaction but just a bit of trepidation, to the question of how we’re doing in Texas along those lines.

So far, so good, is the immediate answer. But there’s the future to think about.

Texas likes business. Its fiscal and regulatory policies generally inspire business to like Texas in return. Forbes magazine calls modern Texas the fourth-best state for business. Not bad – except a year earlier, it was second best; falling this year behind No. 1 Virginia, No. 2 Utah, and No. 3 North Carolina. Hmmm.

Let’s see what the Washington, D. C.-based Tax Foundation has to say, based on its analysis of our state’s tax policies. Yes, again, we’re doing reasonably well: No. 8 in the country for “tax climate.”

The top three – Wyoming, South Dakota, and Nevada – aren’t strictly comparable to a semi-industrialized state with 24.1 million people and 254 counties, so let’s not start getting jealous. Let us note instead that Texans pay only 9.3 percent of their income to state and local government, compared with a national average of 11 percent. No small reason for our standing, as practically all Texans know, is the absence of a state income tax. Only six other states enjoy that blessing.

So what’s the problem here? Is there a problem?

A new feature of life called the Margins Tax – a 1 percent gross receipts tax – has begun to haunt those who ponder the state’s economic future. Enactment of the Margins Tax, in 2006, as replacement for Robin Hood property tax reductions, caused Texas’ drop to eighth place in tax climate from a consistent sixth dating back to 2003.

Where’s this thing going? That’s the question we have to ask with intensity and persistence. The last thing Texas should want at this stage is the inadvertent shaping of tax policies that undermine its relationship with business – that make our state not a more, but rather a less, desirable place to set up shop and hire people and send goods to market.

As the Tax Foundation observes, “The modern market is characterized by mobile capital and labor. Therefore, companies will locate where they have the greatest competitive advantage. States with the best tax system will be the most competitive in attracting new businesses and most effective at generating economic and employment growth.”

Whining and sniveling – the “don’t they love us anymore?” stuff – won’t help a bit. A relationship of mutual satisfactions entails projection of those satisfactions in both directions. When, for one reason or another, those satisfactions wane, new considerations take over. Suddenly the friends, the pals, the running mates, see each other as strangers.

A “business friendly” environment depends directly on acts of friendship: like saying, through specific tax policies, hey, we want you here. It’s harder than it sounds. A state growing as fast and as unpredictably as Texas finds itself challenged to expand essential services at prudent cost. What has to drive budgeting in Texas, at all governmental levels, is scrupulous consideration not of what we might want if we had all the money in the world, but rather of what we need most, and how we might most prudently pay for it.

We’ll never quit wrangling over taxes. No society does. We’ll know we’re getting somewhere when our political leaders signal with one heart and one accord their understanding of tax policy as a two-way street: as even and well-paved for those who pay the taxes as for those who consume the services.

William Murchison is a Senior Fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Kelo Day

Today is the third anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s egregious Kelo vs. New London decision, in which a 5-4 majority expanded the ability of governments to use the power of eminent domain to include "economic development." The ruling dealt a tremendous blow to individual property rights and has drawn sharp rebuke from across the philosophical spectrum.

Over the last three years, the Texas Public Policy Foundation has extensively researched the question of how the state can preserve individual property rights in a post-Kelo world. Last month, Bill Peacock and Drew Thornley testified before a House committee on eminent domain and condemnation compensation, respectively. And last fall, Bill Peacock gave a presentation on how eminent domain harms those in need of affordable housing.

Texas has made some progress to protecting Texas landowners from eminent domain abuse, but much more needs to be done.

- David Guenthner

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

How "inconvenient"

Last year, our friends at the Tennessee Center for Policy Research obtained the energy bills from Academy Award-winning documentarian Al Gore’s Nashville mansion. They found, among other things, that Gore’s electricity usage in August 2006 was more than twice what the average American household uses in an entire year.

Gore family spokesman Kalee Kreider responded that, “the bottom line is that every family has a different carbon footprint. And what Vice President Gore has asked is for families to calculate that footprint and take steps to reduce and offset it.”

So TCPR just took another look at Nobel laureate Al Gore’s energy bills to see how their “reducing and offsetting” was going. What they found: Even after a “green” retrofit in June 2007 that included new solar panels, a geothermal heating system, lighting upgrades, and an overhaul of the windows and ductwork, Gore’s home energy usage in the 12 months following the renovations was more than 10% higher than the 12 months before.

The average American household consumes 11,040 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity per year. Gore’s Nashville mansion uses an average of 17,768 kWh per month.

And that doesn’t include the carbon footprint from Al Gore’s private jet and Lincoln Town Car transport, his Live Earth concerts, or his 2007 book and arena tours.

“Actions speak louder than words, and Al Gore’s actions prove that he views climate change not as a serious problem, but as a money-making opportunity,” Johnson said. Al Gore is exploiting the public’s concern about the environment to line his pockets and enhance his profile.”

Even after all of his mansion renovations, Al Gore has quite a bit of work to do to get his proverbial carbon house in order.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

TPPF COMMENTARY: Denying Dropouts a Second Chance?

How far should the state of Texas go to help high-school dropouts return to school and complete their diplomas? The Texas Education Agency wants to provide grants for a variety of dropout recovery pilot programs, but the public school lobby objects because non-government schools would be eligible to participate. In this week's commentary, Foundation education policy analyst Brooke Dollens Terry argues that Texas' dropout problem is so severe that any option that meets the needs of the students and helps them to complete their education is worth supporting.

----------

Denying Dropouts a Second Chance?

By Brooke Dollens Terry

Albert Einstein once said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. This sounds oddly familiar in the world of education policy. Throw more money at it and expect different results.

The public school establishment clings to the notion that schools can only get better if they get more money. Yet per student spending in Texas has almost doubled in the past ten years – growing from $5,282 per student in 1995-1996 to $9,629 in 2005-2006 – with little to show for it in student achievement on top of the thousands of students dropping out of school entirely.

In fact, more than 131,000 Texas students did not graduate with their class in 2006. This statistic is even more appalling considering the fact that African-American and Hispanic students are much more likely to dropout. Broken down by ethnicity, 57.7 percent of African-American students, 54.6 percent of Hispanic students, and 75.9 percent of white students graduated with their class in 2006.

A recent proposal from the Texas Education Agency to provide grants for dropout recovery pilot programs has drawn fire from the public school lobby. Under TEA’s proposal, the grants would provide funds to a variety of educational settings including public schools, charter schools, universities, and some private schools, if they do one thing: get dropouts, or those at risk of dropping out, back into school to work on their diploma. This arrangement would not divert funds from public schools, but establishes a bounty for bringing kids back to complete their education.

The fundamental question, then, is should the state put a priority on getting dropouts back into school by paying any educational institution that can convince the student to return?

For the public school establishment it seems the answer is a resounding “no!” These education groups show their true colors as they wield political power to protect their self-interest rather than meet the needs of students that public schools have failed to reach. Most disappointingly, many in the public school lobby seem satisfied if they lose funding due to a student dropping out of school, but object to allowing those funds to follow a student to their classroom setting that rescues them from dropping out.

As Texas struggles with a dropout crisis, policymakers should also explore new solutions to catch those students who continue to fall through the cracks. Dropouts desperately need a second chance at an education and should be given a variety of options – be it in a public, charter, virtual or private school – that meets their individual needs.

The public should demand that the state do something to address the dropout crisis and reject those who defend and protect the status quo that has so obviously failed to meet this need. Instead of dismissing dropouts as impossible to serve, we hope dropouts will be given the opportunity for this second chance through a variety of innovative approaches, and we hope public schools step up to the plate along with other educational settings as they compete to bring these students back to school.

If experience has taught us anything, it is that doing the same thing just isn’t good enough.

Brooke Dollens Terry is an education policy analyst at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin. She can be contacted at bterry@texaspolicy.com.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Foundation praises new English/Language Arts curriculum

AUSTIN – The Texas Public Policy Foundation applauds the State Board of Education for its vote today to raise the rigor of the state’s academic standards in English and language arts.

“It is obvious that too many Texas public school students aren’t learning the basics with our current curriculum,” said Foundation education policy analyst Brooke Terry, who testified before the SBOE in favor of the curriculum changes. “We are glad the new curriculum will emphasize grammar and writing skills.”

According to Terry, Texas public schools fail to adequately prepare many students for college or the workplace. A 2006 survey by the Conference Board found that 81 percent of employers viewed recent high school graduates as “deficient in written communications” needed for letters, memos, formal reports, and technical reports.

During the fall of 2006, 38 percent of students at two-year public colleges and 24 percent of students at four-year public college needed remedial education to be able to do college-level work. The Commission for a College Ready Texas reports as many as 50 percent of Texas college freshman are enrolled in remedial education compared to 28 percent across the United States.

“Passing an English/Language Arts curriculum that clearly outlines expectations should help schools better prepare students with their reading and writing skills,” Terry wrote to the SBOE earlier this month. “We support higher standards and believe the proposed English/Language Arts standards will help our students succeed.”

The Texas Public Policy Foundation is a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin, Texas. The Foundation’s research on education policy is available on the Foundation’s website, www.TexasPolicy.com.

- 30 -

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

COMMENTARY: Environmental Policy Constrains U.S. Oil Supply

Is there no end to the soaring fuel prices? Crude oil may reach as high as $150 or $200 per barrel by the end of this year according to many analysts.

The world’s oil supply is perilously tight. American dependence on unreliable foreign sources for more than 60 percent of domestic oil demand, indeed, drives the price at the pump. With new policy, the United States certainly could increase domestic production of oil.

Such is the impetus behind The American Energy Production Act of 2008, introduced in the U.S. Senate on May 1 and supported by our Texas Senators, Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn. The legislation would stimulate domestic oil production by removing federal bans on oil development in Alaska and off the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, expediting EPA permits for refineries, encouraging leases for oil shale development, and mandating production of coal-derived fuels.

U.S. oil production has steadily declined since the 1970s. Over these 35 years, oil exploration, pumping, pipeline infrastructure, and refining have been consistently opposed by the powerful environmentalist establishment … and with great success. It is time to reconsider these constraints on domestic production.

Consider the volumes of U.S. oil resources. The most conservative measure is “proven reserves.” To be proven, it must be reasonably certain that the crude oil can be produced using current technology at current prices, current commercial terms, and with government consent. The U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) estimates the U.S. has 21.8 billion barrels of oil (bbo) in “proven reserves.”

At today’s consumption rates, proven reserves would last 50 years. Yet the amount of proven reserves might jump to more than 50 billion barrels if the government “consented” to development of areas now off-limits.

And “recoverable reserves” — known oil resources capable of recovery, but with more cost and technical difficulty than proven reserves — hold several thousand times more. These resources include: light oil in place (293 bbo); heavy oil (81 bbo); oil sands (80 bbo); and the mother lode, oil shale (2,118 bbo). Add the 21.8 bbo proven reserves and 30 bbo off-limits, and the total 2.6 trillion barrel endowment of American oil resources would support U.S. demand for thousands of years.

Unlike Britain, Canada, or Norway, federal decision has barred offshore oil exploration in half the Gulf of Mexico, and off the East and West coasts. The U.S. Department of Interior estimates that these offshore bans cover more than 16 billion barrels.

The environmental establishment still preaches that producing oil and preserving the environment are mutually exclusive propositions. But the original environmental risks have been almost eliminated by creative technology and safeguards. None of the offshore platforms hit by the gales of Hurricane Katrina spilled a drop of oil. In the Gulf of Mexico, where offshore production is allowed, innovative means of enhancing aquatic habitat have been highly successful.

Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is considered the largest untapped oil field in North America. Even with elaborate means to preserve wildlife habitats, former President Bill Clinton vetoed legislation to allow its development. Estimates of practically recoverable crude oil there are between 10 and 12 billion barrels.

The 92 million acres of federal lands in the lower 48 states also contain oil resources. Shortly after 9/11, Congress reviewed all energy resources on federal lands. Their study found that only 25 percent of the lands were accessible for oil development. Restrictions precluded access to all but 18 percent of the estimated 4.2 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

With ever increasing global demand for fuel, all cost-efficient and environmentally responsible energy sources are needed. For the next several decades, however, there are no realistic alternatives to the petroleum dominance in transportation fuels. Renewable fuels, batteries, and hydrogen fuel cells can, in the near future, provide only a sliver of the volume needed.

What percentage of voters would still support environmental policies that constrain U.S. production of oil? In a March 2008 nationwide survey of registered voters by the Institute for Energy Research, 72 percent prioritized U.S. energy independence ahead of global warming concerns.

The American Energy Production Act of 2008 offers a critical step forward. After 9/11 and again after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, comparable legislation was introduced. As the urgency waned, so did enthusiasm for the new policy. Perhaps gasoline at $5 or $6 per gallon could break the inertia that perpetuates American dependence on foreign oil.

Environmental protection and affordable energy are compatible. Like no other, this country can still achieve ever greater levels of environmental quality, reliable energy, and national security.

Kathleen Hartnett White is Director of the Center for Natural Resources at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin. She is the former Chair of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

COMMENTARY: Telecom Taxes on the Decline; City Franchise Fees Should be Next

Prior to 2007, Texas ranked third in the nation in telecom taxes. One national study estimated that Texans paid about 29 percent in taxes and fees on their local phone service – a rate twice the national average.

Since then, the Legislature has eliminated the $210 million a year Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund fee, while the Texas Public Utility Commission recently cut the Universal Service Fund fee by $144 million a year.

These two cuts, when fully phased in over four years, will cut the tax rate by about 2.25 percent, saving the average consumer $1.12 per month. But our telecom taxes will remain well above the national average, let alone the state average for other goods and services.

Consumers who buy electronics or yard equipment pay a combined state/local sales tax rate of 8.25 percent. For cars, it’s 6.25 percent. Only mixed beverages (14 percent) and cigarettes (35.6 percent) are in the range of telecom taxes. So using a telephone still qualifies for “sin tax” treatment.

With Texas telecom taxes still too high, where is the next place to cut?

City franchise fees.

Local telephone tax rates total about 11.32 percent on the average bill. The three largest local taxes are the franchise fee, the 911 tax, and the local sales tax. Of these, the franchise fee is by far the largest. In fact, local franchise fees can even top the state sales tax as the largest single tax on consumers’ tax bills, going as high as 6.35 percent.

Franchise fees are payment for the use of the public right of way, though most of the revenue generated from franchise fees is not used to manage or maintain the right of way. Instead, the majority of revenue generated by franchise fees goes straight into a city’s general revenue fund. And this is true not just for fees paid by telephone and cable companies, but for fees paid by all companies that use the right of way.

The numbers are impressive. Dallas will collect about $31 million from telephone franchise fees. But they also collect fees from cable, electric and gas companies, so the city’s total franchise fee revenue should reach about $125 million this year. Houston will do even better, collecting $48 million in telephone fees, $99 million in electric fees and $37 million in gas and other fees, for a whopping total of $184 million.

And all of these costs are being passed on to consumers.

Cutting the telephone and cable franchise fees in half would reduce most consumers’ bills by another 3 percent or so, lowering Texas telecom taxes by more than $500 million a year. Similar cuts to electric, gas and other fees would yield even greater savings for consumers. This would still leave more than enough revenue for management and maintenance of the public right of way.

Cities want us to believe that franchise fees are not taxes, but rental payments for the use of public property by private companies that must be a “value based fee [to] maximize revenue” on behalf of the public. But a quick look at a telephone or cable bill belies this argument. Consumers, i.e., the public, not businesses, pay the franchise fees—businesses are just tax collectors for the government. In essence, the public is paying franchise fees in order to use the public right of way.

It is the cities—not the citizens—that are profiting from today’s excessive franchise fees, which also harm consumers by keeping new entrants out of the market, undermining efficiency, and reducing competition.

A significant reduction in telecom franchise fees could lead to more video, voice, and data services being delivered to the home—at a lower price, with lower taxes to boot. A reduction in electricity franchise fees might even lead to competition in the transmission or distribution of electricity.

We don’t know exactly what innovations and efficiencies would come from a reduction in franchise fees, but we do know that consumers would benefit to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year. That should be the only information we need to keep consumer tax cuts moving forward.

Bill Peacock is the Director for the Center for Economic Freedom with the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Foundation applauds Georgia school choice law

AUSTIN – The signing of a universal school choice law in Georgia should encourage Texas lawmakers to provide parents and students with more educational choices here, according to the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

Yesterday, Gov. Sonny Perdue signed legislation that creates both individual and corporate tax credits for contributions to “Student Scholarship Organizations,” which are privately-run, non-profit organizations that award private school scholarships to children enrolled in Georgia public schools.

“There are nearly two dozen school choice programs operating across the country, with Georgia’s and Louisiana’s being open to all students,” said Foundation education policy analyst Brooke Dollens Terry. “They are observing what we did in the Edgewood ISD pilot here – school choice benefits both the children who exercise their school choice, and the children who remain in the public schools.”

Taxpayers are eligible for dollar-for-dollar income tax credits up to $1,000 for individuals; $2,500 for married couples filing jointly; and 75 percent of a corporation’s tax liability. Taxpayer contributions may not be earmarked to a particular child. There are no demographic restrictions on which students may be awarded scholarships, but the tax credits are capped at $50 million per year.

“Georgia is the latest state to embrace the idea that parents are better equipped than the public education lobby or government bureaucrats to select the best educational environment for their children,” Terry concluded. “Texas owes it to its families and its future to follow suit.”

The Texas Public Policy Foundation is a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin, Texas. Additional research on school choice is available on the Foundation’s website, www.TexasPolicy.com.

- 30 -

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

TPPF COMMENTARY: Dependency Mindset Limits Health Care Choices

There is no doubt that America’s health care system warrants immediate attention and various culprits have been blamed for the system’s slow disintegration. Much of the anger consumers feel with today’s health care system is directed at rising costs and out-of-pocket expenses.

Surprisingly, their discontent does not lie with the restrictive policies and protectionist-minded policymakers that have created the inflated prices, and their frustration has not been with the exorbitant amount of their tax dollars spent paying for other people’s health care. The overwhelming cry is that the government has not done enough.

A study that revealed stagnant and declining life expectancy rates for various populations in the United States has ignited a firestorm of charges that the government has failed to encourage the public to make healthier lifestyle choices.

A look at recent government campaigns reveals another story. In New York City, a federal judge has approved a city ordinance that would require chain restaurants to post calorie information on menus. Proposed legislation in Mississippi would prohibit restaurants from serving people with a Body Mass Index greater than 30.

Intrusive tactics like these represent a growing trend in government over-reach, while the overwhelming reception of bureaucratic involvement reveals a sense of government reliance never before seen in the United States. There is no greater testament to our society’s embrace of dependency than the battle cry to expand government health programs and extend coverage to higher-income families.

The federal government already spends more than $700 billion a year on health services to millions of low-income households. This money comes straight from the pockets of fellow taxpayers, redistributing the hard-earned money of those earning more and giving it to those earning less.

A number of studies have concluded that as much as 60 percent of the children newly eligible for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program already have private health insurance. Under this new dependency mentality, people are dropping their private coverage for subsidized government programs at an alarming rate. One study found that in several SCHIP programs, at least 28 percent of children enrolled in SCHIP had been enrolled in private coverage during the last six months.

The National Bureau of Economic Research has estimated that between 50 percent and 75 percent of previous increases in Medicaid coverage are associated with a reduction in private insurance coverage. Congressional Budget Office testimony supports this data with reports that states are seeing reductions in the number of privately insured by as much as 50 percent.

The majority of health care proposals – expanding public programs, extending government subsidies, requiring employers to contribute to health care benefits – appeal to this new dependency mentality. These strategies build on the fundamental structure of our already broken system, forcing a select group of individuals to subsidize health care for a growing portion of our population, increasing government dependency and further insulating the majority of consumers from the cost of health care.

As these charitable programs grow, encouraging more government dependency and further isolating consumers from the actuary cost of health care, they eliminate the financial consequences of poor lifestyle choices and open the door to over-reaching government policies. The expansion of public programs creates financial incentives for the government to implement policies that define individual lifestyle choices and manipulate the market place in an effort to constrain health care spending.

Continuing this pattern will inevitably foster the development of regulatory guidelines that dictate our behavior. An effective transformation of American health care will require dismantling the current structure and rebuilding a consumer driven market crafted around personal responsibility and competition.

Allowing the health care system to harnesses market forces would entail limiting government control of health insurance and health care providers. A consumer driven health care market would allow individuals to take control of their health care, driving down costs by encouraging competition and letting individuals decide which health care services are most valuable to them.

By restraining government’s regulatory reach and limiting government health care subsidies, this new approach to health care would lead to lower taxes and encourage individuals to make decisions that are both financially responsible and healthy. A return to competition and personal responsibility will cure America’s health care crisis...if we let it.

Kalese Hammonds is a health care policy analyst at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Aus