The purpose of this site

Nothing causes me more intellectual angst than trivial debate over serious issues. It is certainly easier to ignore good arguments while attacking straw men, or demonize the opposition rather than address their concerns. But when a policy will affect millions of people and may be irreversible, we can't afford shallow thinking.

We need to be guided by good philosophy (identifying the values that we hold dear). We need to understand the true nature of the problem before we can craft a policy to fix it. Once proposed, we need careful reading of the actual legislation. And we need objective, honest assessments of the policy consequences (both intended and unintended).

The purpose of this blog is to provide my views on all of the above, as related to current efforts for US health care reform. It will be readily apparent that I am not impressed with current legislation, but I am also displeased with the incoherence of the opposition. It seems many people (on both sides) are just having gut reactions, without careful reasoning or analysis. I hope my posts can offer some clarity.

I am an economics professor at Brigham Young University, having received my Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota. My life is engrossed in the study of how people respond to incentives and how markets function. Some of my research is directly connected to health care.

I also have a good spectator's seat for the health care market because my wife is an extraordinary registered nurse. Her work experiences provide a steady supply of food for thought, highlighting the problems and successes of health care.

And, of course, I am a participant in the market as well. Between home improvement accidents and kids' viruses, I've provided employment for a fair number of doctors.

My hope is that this site offers rational debate. One pleasant peculiarity of most economists is their ability to objectively consider touchy subjects. I think this is because they approach a disagreement like an excavation, trying to dig up and examine the logical structure and underlying assumptions on which their opponent's argument relies.

Not that they'll accept any random opinion. If it the assumptions or the logic are flawed, they'll let you know. But there's a certain civility about respect for logical, well founded arguments — and it even makes debates on religion or politics enjoyable! But I think our profession has not done well (particularly in the last year) at communicating what we know to a broader audience. This is my attempt to lead by example.