<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>MedWorm Tags: ezra klein</title>
        <description>MedWorm provides a medical RSS filtering service. Over 6000 RSS medical sources are combined and output via different filters. This feed contains the latest medical blog items that have been tagged with 'ezra klein'.</description>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.medworm.com/rss/search.php?qu=%22ezra+klein%22&t=%22ezra+klein%22&r=Exact&o=d&f=tag]]></link>
        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 02:54:32 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <item>
            <title>Top Health Quotes of the Week</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4876388&amp;cid=t_212353_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Ftop-health-quotes-of-the-week%2F2011.05.28</link>
            <description>“The combined profits of the Fortune 500 increased by 81% this year, the third largest gain in history. Compare that to the unemployment rate, which fell by just 8% over the past 12 months.” Ezra Klein, while analyzing last week’s jobs report by the Federal Government.
“Why would I listen to ‘lub dub’ when I can see everything?” Eric Topol, a cardiologist in San Diego who carries a portable ultrasound device with him in lieu of a stethoscope. The device lets him and his patient see the heart muscle and valves, and blood flow into and out of the organ.
“There probably is not a whole lot that we can do at the pipeline level to dramatically improve the number of students choosing primary care. Where the money is, is where the money is.” Mark Schwartz, an associate profes...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4876388</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 28 May 2011 12:00:58 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4876388</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>‘So How Are Democrats and Republicans Different?’</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4570524&amp;cid=t_212353_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FYk4wY15ki0Y%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael F. CannonI present you Robert Laszewski's magnificent take on ObamaCare and Wisconsin, Democrats and Republicans.
&amp;#8216;So How Are Democrats and Republicans Different?&amp;#8217; is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog (Source: Cato-at-liberty)</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4570524</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 10 Mar 2011 19:04:22 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4570524</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Ezra Klein vs. the Secretary of Agriculture</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4565889&amp;cid=t_212353_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FBIpBv26rvS8%2F</link>
            <description>By Sallie JamesIt seems that Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack took exception to Ezra Klein's recent blog post on &quot;Why we still need cities&quot;. Someone at the USDA emailed Ezra, outlining the Secretary's concerns and to set up a time for the two of them to talk. Ezra took notes during their discussion and, yesterday, posted a &quot;lightly edited&quot; transcript of their conversation.
The Secretary had plenty of the standard talking points on hand -- and some new ones, like the fact that we should support farm subsidies because rural America has good values and farmers don't feel appreciated -- but Ezra expertly took him to task, deftly pushing back on the non-sequitors, questionable assumptions and enduring myths about the need for farm subsidies.  He even gets in a worthy swipe at sugar...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4565889</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 09 Mar 2011 16:31:32 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4565889</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>What on Earth Is Ezra Klein Talking about?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4560239&amp;cid=t_212353_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fv6c52HjzVwM%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael F. CannonThe Washington Post's Ezra Klein writes:
It's put-up-or-shut-up time for Republicans. They managed to make it through the health-care debate without offering serious solutions of their own, and - perhaps more impressive - through the election by promising to tell us their solutions after they'd won. But the jig is up. They need a health-care plan - and quickly.
The GOP knew this day would come.
Say what?  Exactly what political factors are forcing the GOP to put up or shut up?  Their base is happy; it wants an all-out assault on ObamaCare, and congressional Republicans are giving it to them.  Republicans are even winning the ObamaCare debate among the broader public:

So why should Republicans all of a sudden stop attacking ObamaCare and start talking about their own...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4560239</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 08 Mar 2011 15:06:02 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4560239</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Why Ryan-Rivlin Beats ObamaCare on Costs — and Spending</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4459943&amp;cid=t_212353_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FNc9YdlUADS8%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael F. CannonWashington Post blogger Ezra Klein asks of Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-Wisc.) Medicare voucher proposal (co-authored with former Congressional Budget Office director Alice Rivlin):
Why are the cost savings in his bill possible, while the cost savings in the Affordable Care Act aren't?...when it comes to the ACA, Ryan firmly believes that seniors will quickly and successfully force Congress to reverse any reforms that degrade their Medicare experience. That's a fair enough concern, of course. What's confusing is why it isn't doubly devastating when applied to Ryan-Rivlin.
Set aside that Klein violates Cannon's First Rule of Economic Literacy: Never say costs when you mean spending.  And that he uses the word &quot;affordable&quot; to describe ObamaCare.
There are two reasons why the M...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4459943</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:21:21 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4459943</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Addressing Healthcare Spending: “Cowardice” Or Bravery?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4225247&amp;cid=t_212353_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Faddressing-healthcare-spending-%25e2%2580%259ccowardice%25e2%2580%259d-or-bravery%2F2010.12.03</link>
            <description>In assessing the “best and worst” of the recommendations from the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility, Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein accuses the Commission of “cowardice” in addressing healthcare spending:
“The plan&amp;#8217;s healthcare savings largely consist of hoping the cost controls . . . and various demonstration projects in the new healthcare law work and expanding their power and reach. . . In the event that more savings are needed, they throw out a grab bag of liberal and conservative policies . . . but don&amp;#8217;t really put their weight behind any. . .[their] decision to hide from the big questions here is quite disappointing . . . ”
Pretty harsh words, considering that in other respects Klein gives the Commission high marks. But I think there is a lot mo...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4225247</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 03 Dec 2010 21:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4225247</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Health Reform: “Compete And Succeed” Or “Repeal Or Replace?”</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4190154&amp;cid=t_212353_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fhealth-reform-compete-and-succeed-or-repeal-or-replace%2F2010.11.22</link>
            <description>Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) thinks so. So does Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR). And Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Senators Brown, Wyden and Sanders have introduced the &amp;#8220;Empowering States to Innovate Act.&amp;#8221; Ezra Klein blogs that the Senators may have found a way forward on health reform.
&amp;#8220;If a state can think of a plan that covers as many people, with as comprehensive insurance, at as low a cost, without adding to the deficit, the state can get the money the federal government would&amp;#8217;ve given it for health-care reform but be freed from the individual mandate, the exchanges, the insurance requirements, the subsidy scheme and pretty much everything else in the bill,&amp;#8221; Ezra Klein writes. &amp;#8220;If conservative solutions are more efficient, that will be clear when their ben...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4190154</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 22 Nov 2010 13:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4190154</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Saving Hayek from the People Who Think They’re Saving Hayek</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4159218&amp;cid=t_212353_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F3GbvRw6XHOs%2F</link>
            <description>By Jason KuznickiI&amp;#8217;ve been noticing a game lately played in the bookish corners of the left side of American politics. We&amp;#8217;ll call it &amp;#8220;We Know Hayek Better Than You.&amp;#8221; It&amp;#8217;s a game not without some attendant dangers. But it&amp;#8217;s nothing if not fun.
Writing at Ezra Klein&amp;#8217;s spot in the Washington Post, Karl Smith quotes Friedrich Hayek as follows:
That the ideal of justice of most socialists would be satisfied if merely private income from property were abolished and the differences between the earned incomes of different people remained what they are now, is true. What these people forget is that in transferring all property in the means of production to the state they put the state in a position whereby its action must in effect decide all other incomes....</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4159218</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 11 Nov 2010 17:59:36 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4159218</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Why Won’t This Pig Fly? I’ve Tried Everything . . .</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4074041&amp;cid=t_212353_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FuR-MPb6DKqU%2F</link>
            <description>By Adam SchaefferIt’s fascinating to read Progressives as they think through a difficult policy problem. Kevin Drum writes (at Mother Jones!) that we can’t improve education or mitigate poverty:
“I continue to think that the biggest problem here is simply that no one has any really compelling answers. . . You can go down the list of every ed reform ever touted, and they either can&amp;#8217;t scale up, turn out to have ambiguous results when proper studies are done, or simply wash out over time. . .
So is the answer to address concentrated poverty? Sure. Except that, if anything, attempts to address poverty have a worse track record than attempts to improve education.
I would really, really like someone to tell me I&amp;#8217;m wrong. So far, though, no one has. At least, not to my satisfact...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4074041</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 14 Oct 2010 16:53:56 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4074041</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Shifting the Blame for America’s Health Care Woes</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3976487&amp;cid=t_212353_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F-Sb79C4_7uY%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael F. CannonI must be losing my touch. I&amp;#8217;ve let nearly two months pass without responding to Ezra Klein&amp;#8217;s defense of RomneyCare, ObamaCare, and other centrally planned health care systems.  (For those who want to get up to speed: his original post, my reply, and his response.)  So here goes.
Klein notes that he and I had each used flawed measures of RomneyCare&amp;#8217;s impact on health insurance premiums in Massachusetts.  Fair enough.  But Klein ignores the study I cited by John Cogan, Glenn Hubbard, and Dan Kessler, which estimates that RomneyCare increased premiums in Massachusetts by 6 percent.  The CHK study has limitations, but it is the best estimate available.  I hope Klein addresses it.
Klein&amp;#8217;s fallback position is that even if RomneyCare increases p...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3976487</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 16 Sep 2010 15:50:05 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3976487</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>What’s the Ideal Point on the Laffer Curve?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3880827&amp;cid=t_212353_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FdG-eJOp0oV8%2F</link>
            <description>There&amp;#8217;s been a bit of chatter in the blogosphere about a recent post on Ezra Klein&amp;#8217;s blog, featuring estimates from various economists about the revenue-maximizing tax rate. It won&amp;#8217;t come as a surprise that people on the right tended to give lower estimates and folks on the left had higher guesses. Donald Luskin of National Review estimated 19 percent, for instance, while Emmanuel Saez, Dean Baker, Bruce Bartlett, and Brad DeLong all gave answers around 70 percent.
There are two things that are worth noting.
First, every single answer is to the right of the Joint Committee on Taxation. The revenue-estimators on Capitol Hill assume that taxes have no impact on overall economic performance. As such, even confiscatory tax rates have very little impact on taxable income. The ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3880827</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 19:12:04 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3880827</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>When Keynesians Attack, Part II</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3858138&amp;cid=t_212353_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FUmTu15HUr5o%2F</link>
            <description>By Daniel J. MitchellI&amp;#8217;m still dealing with the statist echo chamber, having been hit with two additional attacks for the supposed sin of endorsing Reaganomics over Obamanomics (my responses to the other attacks can be found here and here). Some guy at the Atlantic Monthly named Steve Benen issued a critique focusing on the timing of the recession and recovery in Reagan&amp;#8217;s first term. He reproduces a Krugman chart (see below) and also adds his own commentary.
Reagan&amp;#8217;s first big tax cut was signed in August 1981. Over the next year or so, unemployment went from just over 7% to just under 11%. In September 1982, Reagan raised taxes, and unemployment fell soon after. We&amp;#8217;re all aware, of course, of the correlation/causation dynamic, but as Krugman noted in January, &amp;#822...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3858138</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 12 Aug 2010 00:39:11 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3858138</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>When Keynesians Attack</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3831345&amp;cid=t_212353_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FMOuHxxoY74g%2F</link>
            <description>By Daniel J. MitchellIf I was organized enough to send Christmas cards, I would take Richard Rahn off my list. I do one blog post to call attention to his Washington Times column and it seems like everybody in the world wants to jump down my throat. I already dismissed Paul Krugman&amp;#8217;s rant and responded to Ezra Klein&amp;#8217;s reasonable criticism. Now it&amp;#8217;s time to address Derek Thompson&amp;#8217;s critique on the Atlantic&amp;#8217;s site.
At the risk of re-stating someone else&amp;#8217;s argument, Thompson&amp;#8217;s central theme seems to be that there are many factors that determine economic performance and that it is unwise to make bold pronouncements about Policy A causing Result B. If that&amp;#8217;s what Thompson is saying, I very much agree (and if it&amp;#8217;s not what he&amp;#8217;s trying...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3831345</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 06 Aug 2010 12:12:02 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3831345</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Responding to Paul Krugman and Ezra Klein</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3822899&amp;cid=t_212353_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FDc5ya4UeZwE%2F</link>
            <description>By Daniel J. MitchellI seem to have touched a raw nerve with my post earlier today on my International Liberty blog,  comparing Reagan and Obama on how well the economy performed coming out of recession. Both Ezra Klein and Paul Krugman have denounced my analysis (actually, they denounced me approving of Richard Rahn&amp;#8217;s analysis, but that&amp;#8217;s a trivial detail). Krugman responded by asserting that Reaganomics was irrelevant (I&amp;#8217;m not kidding) to what happened in the 1980s. Klein&amp;#8217;s response was more substantive, so let&amp;#8217;s focus on his argument. He begins by stating that the recent recession and the downturn of the early 1980s were different creatures. My argument was about how strongly the economy rebounded, however, not the length, severity, causes, and character...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3822899</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 04 Aug 2010 20:53:36 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3822899</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>ObamaCare Remains Unpopular, or Round Two of My Exchange with Maggie Mahar</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3790687&amp;cid=t_212353_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F-E3Dv0FCqOk%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael F. CannonMaggie Mahar responds to my response to her critique of Michael Tanner&amp;#8217;s claim that ObamaCare is deeply unpopular.  Mahar&amp;#8217;s alternative narrative, espoused by many on the Left, is that &amp;#8220;the more voters learn more about the reform legislation, the more they seem to like it.&amp;#8221;
Mahar shows that her narrative works if you begin looking for a trend at the high-water mark of opposition, if you look at a few select polls, if you look at not-so-straightforward poll questions, if you interpret simultaneous declines in both support and opposition as growing support, and if you devise a rationale for ignoring the views of those who most oppose ObamaCare.  Which is to say, her narrative doesn&amp;#8217;t work.  ObamaCare remains deeply unpopular.
Mahar claims ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3790687</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 17:16:54 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3790687</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Investors: Fear the Process That Gave Us ObamaCare, Not Efforts to Repeal It</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3784243&amp;cid=t_212353_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F2UXkNlynyOw%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael F. CannonEzra Klein writes:
So long as the political system is working reasonably well, we can get out from even quite a lot of debt. But the more it breaks down &amp;#8212; the more the market sees things like the deficit commission rejected by its Republican sponsors in Congress, the more it hears threats to repeal the deficit reduction in health-care reform, the more it seems likely that Democrats will become just as unreasonably obstructionist when they become the minority &amp;#8212; the more it has reason to worry.
I doubt that investors worry more when they hear threats to repeal ObamaCare or its Medicare cuts, which few took seriously in the first place. Given that the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the non-partisan chief actuary of the Medicare program, and even the ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3784243</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:18:47 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3784243</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Why Politics Is Stupid</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3776364&amp;cid=t_212353_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FH3D7MMZcfXA%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael F. CannonEzra Klein and Jonathan Chait argue the only way government could reduce inefficient Medicare spending was to create a new health care entitlement program.  Think about that.
The worst part is, they&amp;#8217;re not entirely wrong.  And that same system will now be controlling your health care and an ever-growing share of your income. (Source: Cato-at-liberty)</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3776364</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:20:38 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3776364</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>RomneyCare Advocates: We Swear, This Time Centralized Planning Will Work</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3772221&amp;cid=t_212353_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FTd_FKFd6zk4%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael F. CannonYou know things aren&amp;#8217;t going well in Massachusetts when supporters of RomneyCare write &amp;#8220;there&amp;#8217;s some evidence that the reforms signed into law by Mitt Romney in 2006 are struggling.&amp;#8221;  That&amp;#8217;s how The Washington Post&amp;#8217;s Ezra Klein puts it in a post defending RomneyCare.  The New Republic&amp;#8217;s Jonathan Cohn offers a similar defense.
Klein mentions only a few of the difficulties confronting Massachusetts.  Here are a few more:

The Commonwealth Fund reports that even though Massachusetts already had the highest health insurance premiums in the nation, premiums rose faster post-RomneyCare than anywhere else; 21-46 percent faster than the national average.
A recent study estimates that RomneyCare has so far increased employer-sponsored...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3772221</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jul 2010 18:24:31 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3772221</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Anderson: “Opposition to ObamaCare Is Rock-Solid”</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3706658&amp;cid=t_212353_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FrlkGgLIFkmc%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael F. CannonThe Washington Post&amp;#8217;s Ezra Klein looks at the May/June polling data from Pollster.com (below) and concludes ObamaCare is &amp;#8220;getting more, not less, popular.&amp;#8221;

At The Weekly Standard, Jeffrey H. Anderson explains how that changing trendline reflects not a shift in public sentiment, but the fact that the polls conducted in May and June are fewer and less reliable. (Source: Cato-at-liberty)</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3706658</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jun 2010 14:28:47 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3706658</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Health Insurance And “Medical Loss Ratio” Foolishness</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3603598&amp;cid=t_212353_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fhealth-insurance-and-medical-loss-ratio-foolishness%2F2010.05.25</link>
            <description>Like Ezra Klein, smart people keep saying foolish things about the health insurance business. This time it’s a pair of bloggers talking about the largest expense that health insurers face &amp;#8212; their “medical loss ratio.”
According to Richard Dale at the Venture Cyclist:
[W]hy do they call it Medical Loss Ratio? Why is looking after me (or you) called “Medical Loss,” when the whole point of a healthcare system is to look after me (or you)?
(Sigh.)
Alan Katz, one of the leading health insurance bloggers, surprisingly links to this with approval, saying “words matter.” The problem? The word “loss” is probably one of the four oldest words in the insurance industry. I’d say the others are probably “premium,” “commission,” and “profit.” Should we start outlawi...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3603598</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 26 May 2010 01:00:39 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3603598</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Senate Bill Would Increase Health Spending</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3358963&amp;cid=t_212353_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FcTe5RcfvNgw%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael F. CannonEzra Klein quotes the Congressional Budget Office&amp;#8217;s latest cost estimate of the Senate health care bill when he writes:
&amp;#8220;CBO expects that the legislation would generate a reduction in the federal budgetary commitment to health care during the decade following 2019,&amp;#8221; which is to say that this bill will cover 30 million people but the cost controls will, within a decade or so, leave us spending less on health care than if we&amp;#8217;d done nothing.  That&amp;#8217;s a pretty good deal. But it&amp;#8217;s not a very well-understood deal.
Indeed, because that&amp;#8217;s not what the CBO said.
First, the CBO said the &amp;#8220;federal budgetary commitment to health care&amp;#8221; would rise by $210 billion between 2010 and 2019 under the Senate bill.  Then, after 2019, it w...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3358963</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:53:40 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3358963</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Average vs. Marginal Effects of Health Insurance</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3269681&amp;cid=t_212353_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FLAPe5teZNXE%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael F. CannonI have to thank Ezra Klein.  I have for some time been trying, without success, to spark a debate about whether expanding health insurance coverage would actually save any lives.  Even my bet with Karen Davenport seemed to go nowhere.  But when Klein accused Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) of being &amp;#8220;willing to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people&amp;#8221; because Lieberman was jeopardizing passage of legislation that would expand health insurance to 30 million people, Klein made a debate possible.
Following on my first response to Klein that the evidence supporting his claim is remarkably thin, others have joined the discussion.  Matt Yglesias of the Center for American Progress rose to Klein&amp;#8217;s defense.  Megan McArdle (in The Atlantic magazine an...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3269681</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:35:28 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3269681</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Yglesias, Defending Klein’s Slander of Lieberman</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3089261&amp;cid=t_212353_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fd6Sn7DlE3js%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael F. CannonBlogger Matthew Yglesias has a response to my post on Ezra Klein&amp;#8217;s slander that Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) is okay with the mass murder (or the mass negligent homicide) of hundreds of thousands of uninsured Americans.
Yglesias claims that only one of the three studies I cited speaks to what he claims is the central point: the Institute of Medicine&amp;#8217;s estimate of how many Americans die each year because they lack health insurance.  Yglesias is incorrect.  The central point/threshold question is whether giving the uninsured health insurance will save lives.  All three studies speak to that point, and all three all cast doubt on the intuitively appealing idea that giving uninsured people health insurance ipso facto saves lives.
To rebut the one study that Ygle...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3089261</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 00:19:39 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3089261</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Joe Lieberman, Mass Murderer?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3089264&amp;cid=t_212353_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FfGwIGaKFntA%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael F. CannonSo insinuates the Washington Post&amp;#8217;s Ezra Klein, who writes that, because Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) does not support the health care legislation forwarded by Senate Democrats, Lieberman &amp;#8220;seems willing to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in order to settle an old electoral score.&amp;#8221;
In a subsequent post, Klein relies on the Institute of Medicine&amp;#8217;s methodology &amp;#8212; which has been used to estimate that 22,000 Americans die each year from lack of insurance &amp;#8212; to conclude that the Senate bill would save 150,000 lives over 10 years.  He further claims that &amp;#8220;Medicare saved lives.&amp;#8221;  (In fairness, Klein writes that he&amp;#8217;s not accusing opponents of murder.  When he writes of Lieberman&amp;#8217;s willingness to cause ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3089264</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:00:30 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3089264</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Constitutionality of the Individual Mandate</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2999502&amp;cid=t_212353_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FthQcqA0cvW4%2F</link>
            <description>Ezra Klein defends an individual healthcare mandate against charges that it&amp;#8217;s unconstitutional, and what&amp;#8217;s striking to me is that the argument seems awfully wobbly even if you&amp;#8217;re on board with a lot of the post–New Deal jurisprudence about the scope of federal power.  Sez Ez:
The summary is that you can look at the individual mandate as a tax, which is constitutional, or as a regulation forcing private actors to engage in a certain transaction, much like the minimum wage, which is also constitutional. I&amp;#8217;ve also heard scholars mention auto insurance, which is an obvious analogue, and the Americans With Disabilities Act, which proved that the government can order businesses to install ramps, despite the fact that the constitution doesn&amp;#8217;t explicitly give the f...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2999502</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:52:41 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2999502</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Cutting Health Care Costs</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2820197&amp;cid=t_212353_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FPdJLRwfKAIA%2F</link>
            <description>Ezra Klein, the young Washington Post blogger who writes a lot about health care, contributed an article to the paper&amp;#8217;s Sunday Business section in which he made this compelling point along the way:
The surest way to cut health-care spending would be to make people shoulder more of the burden directly, as opposed to hiding it in taxes and lost wages.
Bingo! Exactly! So why does Klein want government to get more involved, to wrap our health care in a web of mandates and subsidies and regulations and gatekeepers and monitors? When, as he says, making the cost of health care clear and direct would be &amp;#8220;the surest way to cut health-care spending&amp;#8221;?
Michael Cannon&amp;#8217;s proposal for &amp;#8220;Large HSAs&amp;#8221; would move us in the right direction. It would allow workers to recei...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2820197</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:50:21 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2820197</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Economics Bloggers Weigh in on Income Inequality</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2625962&amp;cid=t_212353_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FCxWL-UfNmWo%2F</link>
            <description>The economics blogosphere has been buzzing about Will Wilkinson&amp;#8217;s new paper on income inequality.
George Mason University economist Tyler Cowen discusses why social inequality has been falling for some time in the United States:
I agree with Will Wilkinson&amp;#8217;s point that real social inequality has (mostly) been falling for some time in the United States.  Today many an upper middle class person is plausibly happier than many a billionaire.  Yet most self-made billionaires work very hard to get to that position, which creates a possible tension between cardinal and &amp;#8220;observed choice&amp;#8221; or &amp;#8220;ordinal&amp;#8221; metrics of welfare.  Why work so hard for so little?  Presumably many of these billionaires really want to &amp;#8220;be there,&amp;#8221; even if they are only margina...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2625962</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:10:10 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2625962</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Ezra Klein: Socialized Medicine = Slavery</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2469443&amp;cid=t_212353_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fs3I-nzII6w0%2F</link>
            <description>The Church of Universal Coverage really, really, really wants you to think that the Democratic health care reforms moving through Congress are not &amp;#8220;socialized medicine.&amp;#8221;  Last year, I wrote a paper about why they&amp;#8217;re wrong. On June 25, I&amp;#8217;ll be debating the issue at a Cato policy forum with the Urban Institute&amp;#8217;s Stan Dorn.
Today, The Washington Post&amp;#8217;s Ezra Klein lends his voice to the chorus of socialized-medicine deniers. Klein doesn&amp;#8217;t add much to the discussion, except for this: Klein (correctly) observes, &amp;#8220;Socialized medicine is a system in which the government owns the means of providing medicine&amp;#8221; (emphasis his).  Single-payer systems, like the U.S. Medicare program or France&amp;#8217;s health care system, are not socialized medicine b...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2469443</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:46:37 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2469443</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Who’s Blogging about Cato</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2095260&amp;cid=t_212353_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F507559172%2F</link>
            <description>Writing on National Review&amp;#8217;s blog, John Hood cites Michael New’s recent op-ed, “The Right Way to Bail out California” and William Poole’s new article on the Fed’s massive expansionary policies.


While running an online poll on Sanjay Gupta&amp;#8217;s appointment, Ann Althouse quotes Michael D. Tanner on his views about the office of surgeon general.


Jason Shafrin cites a December Cato forum in which panelists Glen Whitman and Ezra Klein debated the state of the nation’s health care. A podcast from the forum, “Does America’s Health Care Sector Produce More Health?” is available here.



Insider Online contributor Alex Adrianson blogs about the most recent edition of Cato Journal, with an article by J.R. Clark and Dwight R. Lee that examines the relationship between g...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2095260</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 22:08:34 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2095260</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>In the U.S. Senate, Finance Committee Chairman Takes A First Step</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1962611&amp;cid=t_212353_147_f&amp;fid=38117&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.engageinhealth.com%2F2008%2F11%2Fin_the_us_senate_finance_commi.html</link>
            <description>With the election over, the first serious step toward major health care changes in Congress took place yesterday. The step-taker was Max Baucus, a Democratic U.S. Senator from Montana perhaps unknown in much of the country but very much known and powerful in Washington because he is chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. Sen. Baucus released a white paper, “Call To Action: Health Reform 2009,” that outlines his priorities for a health care overhaul in the next congressional session. 

The Baucus paper is not legislation – that comes later -- but a broad blueprint that will serve as a starting point for many discussions. Highlights include letting people from age 55-64 “buy in” to Medicare, the government health care program for senior citizens and people with a disability, and...</description>
            <author>The Health Engagement Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1962611</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2008 00:10:29 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1962611</guid>        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

