Most people flip out when economists suggest relaxing government regulation of medical quality. How dare we point out the trade-offs between price, quality, and access? But Robin notes an amazing example we’ve all known about since kindergarten: the school nurse.

Most states have special laws allowing school nurses to directly manage students as patients. True, school nurses can’t do everything docs can, but nurses who offered these same services to passersby at a shopping mall, without direct doc supervision, would violate medical licensing laws. Apparently, we like the comfort of knowing that medical help is onsite at school, but know that an onsite doctor would be very expensive, and so compromise with school nurses.

Pedagogical gold this pure goes straight into my labor econ lectures. Textbook authors and principles teachers, take note.

[From School Nurses and Econ 101, by Bryan Caplan]

Readers of this site know I’m no Sarah Palin fan, but to accuse her of complicity in the murderous spree of a clearly insane person is one of the main reasons that partisan political parties are losing market share. I had myself tweeted that blaming Palin for Jared Loughner’s mass killing would be like blaming J.D. Salinger for Mark David Chapman shooting John Lennon (and as Jesse Walker pointed out, in Chapman’s case, at least we could be sure Chapman had read Salinger). Given Loughner’s fixation on grammar and the supposed lack of literacy evinced by most Americans, maybe William Safire and S.I. Hayakawa should be held responsible. [From The Giffords Shooting, The Instant Politicization of Everything, & Why Americans Increasingly Hate Dems & Reps]

The way to avoid the maddening convulsions of politics isn’t to change them, or rise above them, or move past them, or transform them, or whatever the trendy term of art is on any given day. It’s to avoid them—and reduce their power to hold sway over how we live. And the more decisions about our lives and welfare we put in the hands of politicians, the harder that will be to do.

And while the House of Peers withholds
Its legislative hand,
And noble statesmen do not itch
To interfere with matters which
They do not understand,
As bright will shine Great Britain’s rays
As in King George’s glorious days!
As bright will shine Great Britain’s rays
As in King George’s glorious days!

Story here.

. . . strips away privacy before it goes to work.

Here’s a nice, discrete example: S. 2485, introduced in the U.S. Senate last week, would require asset verification of participants in State Medicaid programs, exposing the personal information held by financial institutions to government access.

This privacy loss is a natural outgrowth of entitlement programs. It’s nearly mandated by the simple and warranted effort to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse.

My 2004 Policy Analysis, “Understanding Privacy – and the Real Threats To It,” explored how entitlement programs almost always carry with them a significant privacy-cost:

To provide benefits and entitlements—and, of course, to tax—governments take personal information from citizens by the bushel. Nearly every new policy or program justifies new or expanded databases of information—and a shrunken sphere of personal privacy.

POSTED BY JIM HARPER ON 04.12.08 @ 5:13 PM

So why do we hear so much about the dire consequences of failing to pass a piddling bilateral trade deal with a ruthless Latin American regime but almost nothing about the dire consequences of the hideous $300 billion distortion caused by the latest round of farm subsidies — most of which goes to big agribusiness, not struggling family farms? How about a little more noise on the farm front?

Why don’t we hear more outrage about the ludicrousness that is are farm policy? For those on the left who decry “corporate welfare”, here is a great place to focus your opprobrium; for those on the right who are against big government programs, fire away; for those who are in favor of free trade, this is a no-brainer; for those who are protectionist, they are already too familiar with no-brainer.

[Update] Go ahead, nix the subsidies:

So by all means, eliminate farm supports and don’t stop there. I suspect that once all agricultural subsidies, including those for energy crops, are removed, the net effect on food prices will be a moderation.

Please, let this trend catch on.

[all this post had was a link to the above site. I originally marked it on 5.18.2007 (happy birthday, Roy!), apparently looking forward to David's coinage of a new word.]