OK, but what about Europe and Canada? Progressives inevitably say: They made it work! This is a rhetorical sleight of hand that collapses on contact with basic facts.
European countries built modest, government-controlled health infrastructures from the ground up over several decades. They contained costs—meaning, among other things, they rationed care—as they expanded access. America did the opposite.
We built the most expensive, technologically advanced, sprawling health system in human history, which consumes nearly 20 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), under mostly private incentives and market pricing. As [Jessica] Riedl puts it, “We cannot simply pay European prices for the more vast American health infrastructure that exists.”
The central theory of single-payer savings has always been this: Slash payments to providers to offset the surge in the use of universal, no-cost-at-point-of-service coverage. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) took a serious look at this fantasy. Its conclusion was that national health expenditures might actually rise, and demand for care would outrun supply. The final result would be European-style rationing, delays, and forgone services, all leading to worsening health care.
Richard Burkhauser and Kevin Corinth report on their new research into poverty in the U.S. Two slices:
From 1939 to 1963, the overall poverty rate—using our post-tax, post-transfer income measure (excluding health insurance)—fell from 48.5 percent to 19.5 percent, a 29.0 percentage point reduction in just under a quarter century. This decline in poverty was accompanied by a 76 percent increase in real median income over the same period, reflecting the United States’ strong economic growth following the Great Depression in the 1940s and the post-war boom in the 1950s. Between 1963 and 2023, the poverty rate fell by another 15.7 percentage points to 3.7 percent. However, the pace of poverty reduction was no faster after the War on Poverty began than before, even when applying a consistent initial poverty rate (19.5 percent) to compare trends in each period. Under this approach, poverty fell to 5.8 percent between 1939 and 1963 but only fell to 7.8 percent between 1963 and 1987.
…..
Our findings show that poverty fell substantially prior to the War on Poverty, primarily due to increases in market income, without a substantial rise in the dependency of working-age adults and their children on government transfers for most of their income. Poverty continued to decline after the War on Poverty began, but this progress was sustained only by the increasing generosity of transfers, as market income poverty rose and dependency increased. It was not until the welfare reforms of the 1990s and the recovery from the Great Recession that poverty and dependency fell simultaneously. These trends were particularly stark for black people, who experienced a steep decline in poverty before the War on Poverty, primarily driven by an increase in their market income, and a large rise in dependency after it began.
China’s economic slowdown risks significant political and social consequences the regime may struggle to manage and that could get ugly. Still, this is all the more reason to cheer one of the rare occasions when the government’s solution is an expansion of freedom for hardworking Chinese migrants.
GMU Econ alum David Hebert unpacks the import price index.
Brian Albrecht argues powerfully against proposals to tax computer-processing capabilities.
John Stossel wisely counsels that Benjamin Franklin’s counsel remains relevant.
David Bahnsen eloquently champions freedom.
Acyn shares this small yet telling example of the utter cluelessness and illogic (unless tendentiousness at all costs is logical) of Batya Ungar-Sargon and other supporters of Trump’s tariffs punitive taxes on Americans’ purchases of imports: (HT Scott Lincicome)
Ungar-Sargon: The American people who voted for Donald Trump are hurting. He has to somehow alleviate the pain. The best way to do that is a stimulus check. He needs to give them a tariff rebate.
Phillip: Weren’t you an advocate for the tariffs?
Ungar-Sargon: Yes
Phillip: Why are you asking for a rebate?
Ungar-Sargon: We brought in $200 billion in tariffs. And we should now take some of that money and give it to Americans who are struggling.
Phillip: That money already has to be refunded because most of it was illegal.
Ungar-Sargon: That’s actually not clear they have to be refunded.
Phillip: There refunds are happening right now. If tariffs are a good idea—
Ungar-Sargon: Yes, I’m so glad we have that money
Phillip: Why would we have to rebate that money in stimulus checks?
