Healthcare Verus the Laws of Economics CNN Debate Night Bernie Sanders vs Ted Cruz: What's Next for THe Affordable Care Act ( ObamaCare) Kill it as #OyVaeyDonaldTrump has declared or Improve It.

One of the great things about economics is that it is devoid of all mysticism. Every person, good, service, and dollar is treated equally — nothing is special or above the rules. There’s nothing about the supply of or demand for apples that is categorically different from that of oranges. Since every good or service demanded by anybody is scarce, economics treats apples, oranges, computers, haircuts, education, and health care in the same way.

There is not a special branch of economic theory that only applies to health care. Economists may focus on health issues, but they use the same basic set of tools as economists who focus on energy, or any other area for that matter.

Does Health Care get a Pass on the Laws of Economics?

This was the root of the disagreement between Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders in this week's CNN debate on Obamacare. Cruz (for all his faults) defended the view that health care is not special when it comes to economics. Sanders seemed to think that if he could just proclaim that health care is a right proudly enough, new doctors, hospitals, drugs, and medical equipment would fall from the sky, equally portioned out across the population of the United States.

At one point, Sanders asked Cruz, “Is every American entitled, and I underline that word, to health care as a right of being an American? Yes or no?” The implication was that the only thing holding Cruz back from agreeing with him was Cruz’s own misanthropy or cowardliness.

Cruz held his ground and espoused a view of rights that says “you have a right for government not to mess with you” and cited the first two amendments in the Bill of Rights as examples.

Notably, economic theory as a wertfrei science has nothing to say about rights. Economics cannot answer the question, “Who ought to have this doctor?” or “What should insurance companies charge various people?”

Voluntary Exchange and Giving Provides for the Best Result

What economics can say, however, is that voluntary exchange is the only way scarce goods find their highest valued use.

Sometimes the highest valued use of a good or service is charitable giving. According to the OECD, the United States is ranked #1 for voluntary private giving (11.1% of GDP), which far exceeds that of the next highest countries: the UK (5.0%) and the Netherlands (7.1%). One can only guess what these figures would be without a giant government crowding out effect.

Sanders’s emotional argument hinges on what happens to people who cannot afford health insurance. But his answer is one that can only yield worse outcomes for people who cannot afford health insurance.

Amy and Bob Want To Help Charlie

Consider an economy of three people: Amy, Bob, and Charlie. Amy has $100 to her name, Bob has $50, and Charlie only has $5. Amy and Bob don’t like how Charlie isn’t able to pay for some items they consider necessary to live a decent life. Amy would like to give $25 to help Charlie, and Bob would like to give $10. Charlie, of course, is happy to receive any help.

Now consider two ways of distributing the funds to help Charlie: one democratic method and one voluntary method. A democratic method would involve the three voting on a standardized distribution scheme, meaning one person may end up having to give more than they desire or less than they desire. Of course, any difference in the latter case can be made up with voluntary, private giving which is still legal. The three must also pay for the ballot box and the forms for income reporting, among other bureaucratic fees. Amy, who is put in charge of the process, is also paid to manage the whole ordeal.

In the end, the actual amount that ends up in Charlie’s hands is less than what Amy and Bob originally wanted Charlie to receive, and, adding insult to injury, someone may have been forced to give more than they wanted, meaning they are worse off. The best case scenario for this democratic method would involve a law that forces people to give exactly as much as they would give voluntarily. But even in this unlikely case (especially once expanding it to a population of 300+ million people), extra funds are still required to go through the voting and redistribution process.

In the voluntary giving method, Charlie directly receives exactly as much as each individual cares to give. Even if Amy decides to set up a charity organization that specializes in getting funds to Charlie, Bob can decide whether or not it is effective in helping Charlie and decide how to give his $10 accordingly.

What this means is that we do not need political “solutions” to any problem involving resource allocation. Nobody likes starvation, illiteracy, or untreated medical ailments. To the extent that we dislike these, we give out of our own abundance, and the especially generous can go even further.

The government can only disrupt this process by crowding out charitable giving and serving as an inefficient middleman. The best-case scenario for Sanders’s plan is one that is worse than what would exist without a single government intervention in health care.

Frantic Finish Clinton Versus Trump to be the 45th President of the USA

50 days: Clinton, Trump plot paths for campaign's frantic finish




Only 50 days remain in the presidential race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, one of the most volatile and unpredictable political battles in U.S. history.

And there's just one week to go before the first, pivotal debate.


National polls show Clinton and Trump running neck and neck. Clinton begins with an advantage in the Electoral College, but Trump is closing fast in a number of battleground states, including Florida and Ohio.


The campaign has been unrelentingly negative and both Trump and Clinton are disliked by a number of voters, suggesting a nasty fight to the finish.



Clinton will have an advantage in money and ground game, but she is struggling mightily to energize the Democratic coalition that turned out for President Obama.



Trump’s supporters are enthused, but his favorability rating is even lower than Clinton’s. Vast swaths of the electorate don’t view him is presidential.

An unprecedented number of voters remain undecided, and third-party candidates are pulling more support than they have in decades.

Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson and Green Party nominee Jill Stein appear to be hurting Clinton, who polls suggest is struggling to win over young voters.

But neither Johnson nor Stein will make the stage at the first debate next Monday in Hempstead, N.Y. because both failed to meet polling criteria for inclusion.


The debate is the first of three that will take place over a 25-day period, with a vice presidential matchup also coming up on Oct. 4. It is widely expected to attract more viewers than any other debate in history.

Clinton, who is enduring one of the roughest patches of her campaign and who just returned to the campaign trail on Thursday from a dramatic illness, is raising the stakes for the next 50 days.


“The next 53 days will shape the next 50 years,” she said at a press conference in Washington, D.C. on Friday.



Clinton is looking to reclaim her standing after falling ill to pneumonia and a serious gaffe. She had to express regret for saying half of Trump’s supporters belonged in a “basket of deplorables.”

She has also had difficulty shaking controversies at the State Department and Clinton Foundation.


Democrats say that over final 50-day stretch, Clinton needs to focus on turning out the African-American, Hispanic and young voters that formed the core of the Obama coalition.



Polls show Democrats are not excited about voting for Clinton and there are worries those voters will stay home on Election Day.



Clinton has acknowledged that she needs to give voters a reason to cast a ballot for her and not just against Trump. But Democrats say she has struggled to make that case.



“It’s amazing to me that after all this time she hasn’t been able to come up with anything better than we’re ‘stronger together’ and don’t vote for him,” said Douglas Schoen, an adviser to former President Clinton’s 1996 reelection campaign. “She simply doesn’t have a message that is catching on.”



Clinton will get an assist in that department from an all-star cast of surrogates.



President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama, both hugely popular among black voters, hit the hustings for Clinton this week.



Progressive favorites Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are also campaigning for Clinton in Ohio, where polls show Trump has moved into the lead.



“Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders are as strong of allies as you can have,” said Democratic strategist Joe Trippi, a veteran of Howard Dean’s 2004 campaign. “There’s nobody even remotely as connected to the millennial generation on the Republican side.”



Trump’s challenge is different.



The GOP nominee, famous for becoming entangled in unnecessary controversies, appeared to right the ship after bringing in a new campaign team over the summer. He uses teleprompters at rallies now and has cut back on press conferences and media interviews.



But Trump was blown off course once again this week, getting into a spat with the female pastor at a black church in Flint, Mich. He also reignited the “birther” controversy, ultimately holding a press conference at his new hotel in Washington, D.C. to acknowledge publicly for the first time that he believes Obama was born in the U.S.



“He needs to stay on message,” said Grover Norquist, the president of the conservative group Americans for Tax Reform. “He needs to focus on the issues where he has the advantage, like the economy and how he would be the agent of change over Clinton, who is the status quo. He can’t become distracted when Hillary or the press throw shiny objects into the air.”



Trump also faces a stiff commander-in-chief test at the first debate, as polls show the public does not view him as presidential.



Trump must address that challenge in substance, in tone and in temperament, Republicans say.



“There is an acceptability threshold he has to pass,” said veteran GOP operative Charlie Black. “At the debate, he needs to gentlemanly and serious. We’ve seen more of that from him lately and he’s done good to shore this up with his policy proposals.”



There are any number of wildcards that could come into play in the final stretch.



Russian hackers and Wikileaks have already left their mark on the election, embarrassing former secretary of State Colin Powell and contributing to the ouster of the head of the Democratic National Committee. Both sides are bracing for further email dumps.



Then there’s the chance that Johnson or Stein could play spoiler to Clinton, a development that Democrats are starting to take seriously.



They vividly remember the 2000 election and still blame Ralph Nader for costing Al Gore the presidency in what turned out to be the closest presidential election in history.



“It’s entirely plausible to think that Johnson and Stein could tip one or two states to Trump,” said Democratic strategist Craig Varoga. “As disappointing as that outcome was in 2000, it pales in comparison with the prospect of an election accidentally in favor of a guy with an impulse-control disorder.”

God Save America from Donny T : Berny Sander's "TrumpTheRump is the “most dangerous presidential candidate in the modern history of this country.”

Donald Trump must be defeated at all costs this November, Bernie Sanders says.

The independent senator from Vermont described the reality TV personality as the “most dangerous presidential candidate in the modern history of this country.”

“I say that, not just because of his absurd views on so many issues,” Sanders told Bill Maher’s “Real Time” show Friday, recalling how Trump is a climate change denier who plans to give tax breaks to the top 1 percent.

“This guy is running his entire campaign based on bigotry,” Sanders continued. “Based on trying to divide us up, based on trying to insult Mexicans, Latinos and Muslims and women and African Americans.”

Sanders reminded the audience that Trump was a leader of the “birther” movement, “which tried to delegitimize the first African American president we have ever had.” “This is a guy who must be defeated,” he added.

Over the issue of whether he’d be able to work with Hillary Clinton, who beat him in the race to become the Democratic party’s presidential nominee, Sanders admitted it was “no secret” they’d had disagreements.

“But what I intend to do, the day after Hillary Clinton is elected president of the United States, is to do everything I can to make sure she goes forward as progressively as she can,” he said.

Democrat Convention division over Zion

Getty

By Mike Lillis - 06/18/16 06:02 AM EDT

Democrats are heading into their convention next month with deep divisions over U.S. policy toward Israel.

The issue created deep rifts at the Democrats' convention four years ago, and that discord is likely to grow more pronounced due to the influence of Bernie Sanders, the insurgent liberal populist who's been much more critical of Israel and its approach to Palestine than Hillary Clinton and most of the party brass.

ADVERTISEMENT

Clinton has secured enough delegates to win the party’s presidential nomination, but Sanders is vowing to take his campaign all the way to the Philadelphia convention in order to maximize his leverage and yank the still-evolving platform to the left.

Sanders supporters have wasted no time advocating their position during the platform drafting process, where they're calling to exclude references to Jerusalem while advancing the notion that Israeli settlements in the West Bank represent "an occupation" –– language adamantly opposed by many Clinton backers, who say it would undermine the peace process.  

"For too long the Democratic Party's been beholden to AIPAC [and] didn't take seriously the humanity of Palestinian brothers and sisters," Cornel West, an educator and activist appointed by Sanders to the drafting committee, said last week, referring to the pro-Israel lobbying group. 

"We're at a turning point now."

The Israel debate highlights a key challenge facing Democratic leaders as they seek to unite the party and move from an often contentious primary to November's general election.

Clinton has been a staunch defender of Israel throughout her career. But many liberals have criticized her position as overly hawkish, leaving party leaders with the delicate task of adopting an Israel plank that represents her views –– and doesn't anger Jewish voters –– without alienating the Sanders supporters who tend to be sympathetic to the Palestinian cause and distrust the former secretary of State on issues of foreign policy.

While both Clinton and Sanders are strong advocates of a two-state solution, their divergent positions when it comes to Israel's actions and strategy have been on stark display throughout the primary. 

Clinton has defended Israel's use of force against Hamas and dismissed criticisms about "disproportionate force" harming civilians as an unfortunate part of that defense. She has accused Palestinian leaders of allowing Hamas to turn Gaza into "a terrorist haven." And, speaking at an annual AIPAC convention in March, she said "America can’t ever be neutral when it comes to Israel’s security or survival."

"Some things aren’t negotiable," she said, "and anyone who doesn’t understand that has no business being our president."   

Sanders, by contrast, has called for a more "even-handed approach" that lends more consideration to Palestinian casualties. He's criticized Israel's military actions in Gaza as "disproportionate" at the expense of civilians. And he skipped the AIPAC convention, instead laying out his Middle East agenda in Salt Lake City, where he decried Israel's "occupation" of the West Bank as an impediment to peace.

"Peace will mean ending what amounts to the occupation of Palestinian territory, establishing mutually agreed upon borders, and pulling back settlements in the West Bank, just as Israel did in Gaza — once considered an unthinkable move on Israel’s part," he said in March. 

It's hardly the first time Democrats have grappled with each other over Israel during election season. At the Charlotte, N.C., convention in 2012, party leaders stirred a hornet's nest when they rewrote the platform, mid-event, to declare Jerusalem to be Israel's capital. The contentious voice vote drew a chorus of boos from critics who both opposed the policy and questioned the veracity of the unverifiable tally.

This year, similar lines are being drawn between the Clinton and Sanders camps. Last week, during the first meeting of the 15-member Platform Drafting Committee, Sanders's surrogates promoted the Vermont senator's calls to include the "occupation" language as part of the official campaign message. West led the way and was joined by James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute and another Sanders appointee.

"If we're concerned about security, it seems to me we're going to have to talk seriously about occupation," West said. "I don't know if you'll allow the use of that word. … Occupation is real, it's concrete."

West was addressing a witness, Robert Wexler, who rejected the language outright.

"I would in fact oppose the use of the word 'occupation' for the very reason that it undermines our common objective,” said Wexler, president of the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace and a Clinton supporter. 

“A two-state outcome will result in an agreement on borders," he added. "Once you have borders, the issue that propels your concern as what you refer to as occupation, will be resolved.” 

Zogby spoke next, asking Wexler whether the "occupation" language should not be adopted "as a way simply of clarifying that to get to two states an occupation has to end?"

Wexler fired back that the focus on settlements ignored other vital elements of a much broader narrative.

"Settlements is one part of this very problematic story," he said. "But so is Jerusalem. And so is refugees. And so is security. And so are borders."

Zogby responded: "So should we leave Jerusalem out of the platform?"

"No," Wexler said.

"I think that that would fit your notion, appropriately, that we should not negotiate or litigate any of the issues in the platform," Zogby replied. "I would agree with that."

Wexler pushed back even before the sentence was done. 

"I would agree that we should not litigate the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in terms of the Democratic platform," he said.

"Except for the issues you want to litigate," Zogby said. It was not a question.

"The point is the Democratic platform is a blueprint for bringing the two sides to a conclusion where our shared objectives are met," Wexler responded.

How they get there from here remains to be seen.