NYT: More Nonsense on Bashar Assad

In today’s “Clock Ticking Against Assad,” another NYT analyst equates “studied abroad, elegant British-born wife, French speaking, and widely-read” with a desire “to reform the repressive police state he inherited from his father, given time and opportunity.” We are told that Bashar, unlike his stern father, “seems quiet, almost meek.”

The press’s treatment of Assad reminds me of the foolish optimism that greeted the appointment of the “sophisticated” Yury Andropov. (Andropov must be a reformer; he loves jazz, cognac and speaks foreign languages. Bashar must be a reformer he studied medicine in Britain).

Apparently Assad’s brutal crackdown of his own people has dashed our expectations. The Obama administration’s bet that Assad, the closet reformer, will democratize and broker a real peace with Israel appears to be lost. But, we learn from the article that this is not Basher’s fault. He is surrounded by sinister relatives and security forces, who stymie his benevolent impulses. His fault (according to an anonymous diplomat) is that he “doesn’t have the courage to do what he needs to do for the sake of the country.”

Somehow we are supposed to believe that one of the world’s tightest and most brutal dictatorships is made up of “good” and “bad” factions, where the bad guys do bad things behind the back of the “good” head of state. We are supposed to believe that Syrian security forces assassinated a leading Lebanese politician without Bashar knowing. Bashar must also be blissfully unaware of Syria’s support of Hezbollah mischief, or of the clandestine attempt to build nuclear weapons.

We are told that Basher’s salvation is meaningful reform. The Baath regime will survive if it allows freedom of assembly and press and opposition political parties! For Bashar’s sake, he should not read such stuff. Basher’s survival chances are near zero if he offers “meaningful reforms.” They will only show weakness and intensify the demonstrations (now without fear of being shot dead). The only “reform” the outraged Syrian population will accept is the removal of Bashar and his entire regime. Bashar Assad, like Qadaffi in Libya and the Mullahs in Iran, can only survive by the sword. That is their best chance, and they are likely to win.

Our diplomats and journalists must learn that dictatorships operate according to specific dynamics that do not depend on the education, background, or humanistic orientation of their leaders. Stalin was extremely well read; was kind to his daughter, and made a great impression on Roosevelt. Pol Pot frequented Paris coffee houses as he wrote his dissertation at the Sorbonne. aitler had excellent table manners. Bashar speaks French and reads good books.

These things make little difference. They are a foundation of sand upon which to base foreign policy.

If You Do Not Understand the Economics of Health Care – Read These Few Lines

The provision of health care is one of the most complicated businesses around. People do not go to their doctors or hospitals for fun. Much of the payment for medical care is through third parties, giving users the impression that it is free. Since 1965, federal and state governments have been heavily involved.

We are now in a wrenching debate about increasing state involvement in health care, full of charges, counte rcharges, truths, half truths, and lies.

Simple economic analysis, however, provides a tried-and-true guide for those who really want to understand the debate. Economics suggests the following points.

“Affordable” universal health care cannot be provided to everyone without mandatory reductions in payments to doctors, hospitals, drug companies, and nurses. Everyone, in effect, will get a “voucher” for health care to be provided at a low (or zero to the patient) price.

Lower mandated payments to health-care providers will have the following effects. Health-care providers will:

Treat only those who pay a price higher than the mandated price.

Transfer into unregulated medical activities (such as cosmetic surgery or weight loss programs).

Withdraw from medicine for related professions that reward them for their training and education.

This means that the government “vouchers” for medical services will have little value. Few medical professionals will honor them. The state health care program is therefore discredited. When this happens, the state has two choices:

Let those who least can afford medical care endure long lines, wait for life-saving treatments, and forego necessary medication. The treatment of the “rich” will be unaffected as financially-strapped medical care providers welcome them to special VIP programs. This option is a political disaster.

Use coercion to force medical care providers to accept voucher patients. The state imposes severe penalties for violations, and, in extreme cases, makes it illegal for any health care provider to charge a price higher than the state-reimbursement rate. At this point, we have a single payer system kept in place by state coercion.

The second solution will result in a loss of economic freedom, from which it will be difficult to recover.