Milton Friedman RIP

[catbirdseat]

I was impressed by the man when I saw his PBS special years ago. I didn't agree with all his ideas but many of the I did agree with, like the idea of the "negative income tax". I'm sure JayB is taking this hard.

 

Obituary- International Herald

[Off_White]

That's funny, JayB is the first person I thought of when I heard the news too.

[foraker]

I recall watching his PBS series and reading his book back in high school. He's one of the reasons I went to the UofC. RIP Milton.

[JayB]

A tremendous loss for Liberalism, to be sure, but when they're in their 90's, you know it's just a matter of time.

 

Oddly enough - his passing made me think of Fidel Castro. Sometimes, when someone who filled a particular role or occupied a particular station is clearly fading, there's an equally capable successor waiting in the wings. In other cases, its clear that the person passed through such a unique set of historical circumstances, and had such a unique combination of attributes and traits that everyone can see that there is no heir apparent. I'm sure that he'd be rolling in his grave if he were ever referred to as "The Fidel Castro of Liberal Economics," but that's kind of how I thought of him. Viva La Revolucion....

[catbirdseat]

Liberalism? He was as conservative as they come.

[cj001f]

Liberalism? He was as conservative as they come.

 

Classical Liberalism

[JayB]

The word has taken on a different connotation in America than it has in Europe, and the popular understanding of "Liberalism" in America differs from its original meaning and use in the English language.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

"Classical liberalism is a political philosophy that supports individual rights as pre-existing the state, a government that exists to protect those moral rights, ensured by a constitution that protects individual autonomy from other individuals and governmental power, private property, and a laissez-faire economic policy. The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that in an environment of laissez-faire, a spontaneous order of cooperation in exchanging goods and services emerges that satisfies human wants.[6] It is a blend of political liberalism and economic liberalism[1] which is derived from Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke, Adam Smith, Voltaire, Johann Wolfgang Goethe and Immanuel Kant, and their precursors, such as Thomas Hobbes and Baruch Spinoza.

 

Many elements of this ideology developed in the 17th and 18th centuries. The early liberal figures now described as "classical liberals" rejected many foundational assumptions which dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion, focusing instead on individual freedom, reason, justice and tolerance.[7]. Such thinkers and their ideas helped to inspire the American Revolution and French Revolution.

 

The qualification "classical" was applied in retrospect to distinguish the early 19th century laissez-faire form of liberalism from modern interventionist social liberalism.[8]"

[Kyle_Flick]

A follower of the original thinker for the free market system on a global scale, Adam Smith.

[Off_White]

Thanks for the definition Jay, few in the conservative camp use the term in any context aside from the modern redefined pejorative.

[Recycled]

The current crop of social conservatives heap scorn on both type of liberals...

[JayB]

I just happened to be reading through a compilation of Milton Friedmans editorials at the WSJ over the years and happened to come across this item:

 

"On Health Care

 

The best way to restore freedom of choice to both patient and physician and to control costs would be to eliminate the tax exemption of employer-provided medical care. However, that is clearly not feasible politically. The best alternative available is to extend the tax exemption to all expenditures on medical care, whether made by the patient directly or by employers, to establish a level playing field, in terms of the currently popular cliche.

 

Many individuals would then find it attractive to negotiate with their employer for a higher cash wage in place of employer-financed medical care. With part or all of the higher cash wage, they could purchase an insurance policy with a very high deductible, i.e., a policy for medical catastrophes, which would be decidedly cheaper than the low-deductible policy their employer had been providing to them, and deposit all or part of the difference in a special "medical savings account" that could be drawn on only for medical purposes. Any amounts unused in a particular year could be allowed to accumulate without being subject to tax, or could be withdrawn with a tax penalty or for special purposes, as with current Individual Retirement Accounts--in effect, a medical IRA. Many employers would find it attractive to offer such an arrangement to their employees as an option.

 

--from "A Way Out of Soviet-Style Health Care," April 17, 1996"

 

And thought of my own post in another thread:

 

"think we'll be seeing more high-deductible plans coupled with tax-sheltered, debit-card-accessible HSA's in the future. I think that whole foods already went this route, and I suspect they'll be a major part of the market when the compulsory-insurance deadline rolls around in MA.

 

I'd much rather pay lower premiums, and get the return on the money that doesn't get spent on health care expenses myself, rather than the insurer get all of this benefit. Transfering the tax deductability for premiums to the individual and taking it away from employers would be something I'd like to see. Under this set of circumstances, I'd much rather get all of my compensation in cash and determine what kind of plan I want, instead of having that determined for me and having my pay reduced by $500 a month or more. I'd also much rather contact specialists directly, compare their rates, and pay cash upfront instead of having to dick around with visits to the PCP and get a referral, etc."

 

Pretty funny.

 

I'm not sure that he's ever addressed the topic, but I suspect if he had he'd really, really hate the current move towards the state turning over the people that rely on Medicaid to private HMOs - at least in the way that it's currently done. Instead of providing Medicaid recipients a voucher that they could use to procure health care from a number of plans that compete for their business, they are essentially stuck in a private monopoly which combines the worst attributes of both government and private enterprises in one package. With a captive market and fixed payments, the incentives are such that the only way to incease margins is to to impose even more onerous price controls than the government's and limit care to an even greater extent than the government had, so inevitable result is that there will be ever fewer providers who are willing to see Medicaid patients, and the efficiency state spending on health care is reduced, and you end up getting less care for the same price. Sounds like the medical equivalent of JFK's quip about DC "All the hospitality of a Northern City with all of the efficiency of a Southern One."

[Fairweather]

I just happened to be reading through a compilation of Milton Friedmans editorials at the WSJ over the years and happened to come across this item:

 

"On Health Care

 

The best way to restore freedom of choice to both patient and physician and to control costs would be to eliminate the tax exemption of employer-provided medical care. However, that is clearly not feasible politically. The best alternative available is to extend the tax exemption to all expenditures on medical care, whether made by the patient directly or by employers, to establish a level playing field, in terms of the currently popular cliche.

 

Many individuals would then find it attractive to negotiate with their employer for a higher cash wage in place of employer-financed medical care. With part or all of the higher cash wage, they could purchase an insurance policy with a very high deductible, i.e., a policy for medical catastrophes, which would be decidedly cheaper than the low-deductible policy their employer had been providing to them, and deposit all or part of the difference in a special "medical savings account" that could be drawn on only for medical purposes. Any amounts unused in a particular year could be allowed to accumulate without being subject to tax, or could be withdrawn with a tax penalty or for special purposes, as with current Individual Retirement Accounts--in effect, a medical IRA. Many employers would find it attractive to offer such an arrangement to their employees as an option.

 

 

What is the date of that editorial? Most or all of those options are available now. (Maybe his prescience was your point?) Pre-tax medical savings plans are already offered, but with one fatal caveat - the employee loses the unused balance at year's end! As for declining benefits in lieu of higher wages - I do just that. My company pays its employees to decline coverage. Not many do, but some, like me, have spouses with medical plans.

 

Now, contrast this with Hillary-care of 1993. She proposed actually taxing the benefits of working Americans to afford government coverage for the uninsured. About 180 degrees Friedman.

[prole]

Oddly enough - his passing made me think of Fidel Castro.

 

That's funny, I always think of Pinochet. I wonder why, given that Friedman was such a champion of liberty and freedom? Viva la counterrevolucion!

[archenemy]

I just happened to be reading through a compilation of Milton Friedmans editorials at the WSJ over the years and happened to come across this item:

 

"On Health Care

 

The best way to restore freedom of choice to both patient and physician and to control costs would be to eliminate the tax exemption of employer-provided medical care. However, that is clearly not feasible politically. The best alternative available is to extend the tax exemption to all expenditures on medical care, whether made by the patient directly or by employers, to establish a level playing field, in terms of the currently popular cliche.

 

Many individuals would then find it attractive to negotiate with their employer for a higher cash wage in place of employer-financed medical care. With part or all of the higher cash wage, they could purchase an insurance policy with a very high deductible, i.e., a policy for medical catastrophes, which would be decidedly cheaper than the low-deductible policy their employer had been providing to them, and deposit all or part of the difference in a special "medical savings account" that could be drawn on only for medical purposes. Any amounts unused in a particular year could be allowed to accumulate without being subject to tax, or could be withdrawn with a tax penalty or for special purposes, as with current Individual Retirement Accounts--in effect, a medical IRA. Many employers would find it attractive to offer such an arrangement to their employees as an option.

 

 

What is the date of that editorial? Most or all of those options are available now. (Maybe his prescience was your point?) Pre-tax medical savings plans are already offered, but with one fatal caveat - the employee loses the unused balance at year's end! As for declining benefits in lieu of higher wages - I do just that. My company pays its employees to decline coverage. Not many do, but some, like me, have spouses with medical plans.

 

Now, contrast this with Hillary-care of 1993. She proposed actually taxing the benefits of working Americans to afford government coverage for the uninsured. About 180 degrees Friedman.

Correct me if I misunderstood the MF post; but I thought that he was essentially saying that this was option #2:

The best alternative available is to extend the tax exemption to all expenditures on medical care, whether made by the patient directly or by employers, to establish a level playing field, in terms of the currently popular cliche.

[Peter_Puget]

linky

[archenemy]

wtf?

[Peter_Puget]

wtf?

 

In particular, those who opposed more government redistribution of income were much more likely to donate money to charities, religious organizations, and political candidates. Those who wanted the government to promote more income leveling were less likely to be generous themselves in their charitable donations and some other altruistic behaviors.

[archenemy]

wtf?

 

In particular, those who opposed more government redistribution of income were much more likely to donate money to charities, religious organizations, and political candidates. Those who wanted the government to promote more income leveling were less likely to be generous themselves in their charitable donations and some other altruistic behaviors.

So you're implying that Hillary Clinton isn't altruistic? She's a lawyer for crissake.