Share This Episode
Carolina Journal Radio Donna Martinez and Mitch Kokai Logo

Carolina Journal Radio No. 815: Year-end special revisits intriguing 2018 topics

Carolina Journal Radio / Donna Martinez and Mitch Kokai
The Truth Network Radio
December 31, 2018 8:00 am

Carolina Journal Radio No. 815: Year-end special revisits intriguing 2018 topics

Carolina Journal Radio / Donna Martinez and Mitch Kokai

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 213 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.


December 31, 2018 8:00 am

As we look forward to a new year, Carolina Journal Radio reviews some of the most interesting topics from 2018. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York describe themselves as socialists. But neither one fits the classic definition of “socialist.” Roy Cordato, John Locke Foundation senior economist, distinguishes the two politicians from traditional socialists and explains why their policy goals would not lead to institutionalized socialism. More and more elected leaders treat politics as a type of performance. That approach has helped transform American politics. Yuval Levin, editor of National Affairs, is working on a book that explores the transformation. He shared insights from his research during a visit to Raleigh. It’s possible to define “conservative politics” in multiple ways. John Locke Foundation Chairman John Hood offered his definition during a speech to the Leadership Institute. Hood explained why his definition follows Margaret Thatcher’s maxim that the facts of life are conservative. Private property rights play a critical role in a free society. The U.S. Constitution focuses attention on protecting those rights. Ilya Somin, professor of law at George Mason University, discussed the Constitution’s property rights protections during a speech this year at N.C. State University. Somin shares themes from that presentation. North Carolina’s certificate-of-need law has restricted new medical facilities and major medical equipment for decades. The idea behind the CON law goes back even further. That’s according to Jordan Roberts, John Locke Foundation health care policy analyst. He discusses the history and explains how the CON law hurts those seeking affordable health care options.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
Line of Fire
Dr. Michael Brown
What's Right What's Left
Pastor Ernie Sanders
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
Focus on the Family
Jim Daly
Line of Fire
Dr. Michael Brown

From Cherokee to current attack from the largest city to the smallest town and from the statehouse into the schoolhouse Carolina Journal radio your weekly news magazine discussing North Carolina's most public policy events and issues welcome to Carolina Journal radio why Michiko got in this special gear. In addition, Donna Martinez and I feature some of the most intriguing topics of 2018. More and more American leaders treat politics as an excuse for performance of all of the end of the journal national affairs explains what that means. He also discusses the impact for American government. There's more than one way to define conservative politics, the chairman of the John Locke foundation offers his take on the topic.

He borrows ideas from the late Margaret Thatcher, private property rights play a critical role in a free society during his speech at NC State University and national expert explain the Constitution's role in protecting private property, it will delve into the history of state restrictions on medical facilities and major equipment.

Those topics are just ahead. First, Donna Martinez joins us with the Carolina Journal headline United States Sen. Bernie Sanders and New York congressional candidate Alexandria Casey of Cortez are emerging stars in the Democratic Party.

They describe themselves as a socialist, but the question is, are they really socialists. Dr. Roy Coronado's Senior economist for the John Locke foundation. He writes that real clear policy.com that there is really no evidence they really are socialists and he's here to explain why the difference is right. Welcome back to the program. Good to be back on okay so we are hearing and reading a lot of things that say the Democratic Party is moving to the left back.

Socialism is now part of a growing wing of the party but you say not really know.

I would argue that oh what they are on unabashed welfare status okay that they fully embrace the welfare state and one expanded much you know every aspect of of both our economic and really are private lives but the socialists okay you say will. How is that yeah well traditionally. Socialism has it has meant to some degree or another. The nationalization of industry, government owned industry okay the government owns the means of production. If you look at traditional definitions of socialism was your meeting. Things like a government owned airline going on in company exactly okay in fact if you look historically, the all the all the "great socialist nations right like North Korea in Venezuela and Cuba and the USSR and China nationalized industries and not only those that use it, willows or dictatorships about, but even even Britain after World War II, the elective socialist government what they do. They started nationalizing the energy industry. The iron industry the coal industry and and out and the healthcare industry since neither Sanders nor Cortez really haven't advocated doing any of that mean there's nothing missing nationalized Google.

I think they've talked about what they call Medicare for all.

Right at the end that get closer to it.

Well it's interesting because people call that socialized medicine, Medicare, Medicaid, are single payer systems are not socialized medicine okay. In Britain they have socialized medicine. The government owns the hospitals the government owns the means of production in in a socialist system in healthcare. It would mean what Britain has government owns the hospitals, doctors are government employees and so on. This is a means of this is payment okay so the government is taking over the payment system but they're not going to means of production, the hospitals will still remain private because I private, nonprofit, whatever they are, doctors will continue to work for where they work for, but won't be government employees really the model if they want socialized medicine. The model is the Veterans Administration okay VA hospital VA hospitals of socialized medicine.

They are owned by the government, doctors are employed by the government. The administration of those hospitals are government employees and so on is socialized medicine. What they really should be saying is we want VA for all okay not Medicare fraud if they truly want socialized medicine.

This is why say they are extreme in the extent that they want government control and very expansive unvarnished welfare state, but that is not socialism. What's interesting Roy is that you go on in the piece that you wrote for real clear policy.com also available@johnlocke.org that there is a term for the views of Sen. Sanders and a congressional candidate.

Tell Casey of Cortez. What is it well before pronouncing it is exactly what I think you can tell you what the term is on me to how I came across that I was doing some research on the economics of fascism and what I coming across is this word which describes the nature of all all the fascist economy Mussolini in Italy Hitler and you're in Germany and so on. And the word is is a French word it's it's Duragesic DIR I GIS empty and there is usually bit basically first to a system where property titles and the means of production are in private. He was okay in the sense that title to the big companies and so on are are private, but it's government making all the decisions. Okay, so it government directs production government may even set wages or at least have a strong influence on what wages would be and therefore government would also predetermine almost the profit or loss of those privately owned company yes will because of be directing what they think should the direction they think the resources should go in on a very broad scale. Nothing to say we do that we have subsidies for companies to come into North Carolina or whatever we're doing that exact same thing. I've obviously on a much smaller scale. Somebody like Bernie Sanders wants to to basically put that in place on a grand scale. Now it's this it's the approach that was used by Franco in Spain Mussolini in Italy but it's it.

As I say in the in the in the paper is ideologically neutral right it. What is a system where you use the power of the state to advance the goals of the state through the economy. Okay, so it doesn't matter what those goals are to could be fascist goals are to could be extreme progressive goals as they are with with Sanders and people calling themselves socialists, but the fact of the matter is, is not a system where industry is generally nationalized and in and therefore it's not socialist prior say exactly Mussolini did not nationalize industry in Italy. Okay, he directed it and and sort of made sure what got produced was what the state wanted produced and how it got produced in all lab but in general it was not system where we are ready, nationalize, industry, and that is in large part what the what did so-called socialists are advocating in the Democratic Party. Let's talk a little bit more about Tom leaves these emerging stars Bernie Sanders of course I'm a holdover from the 2016 presidential election and now at this sad new person on the scene and she's out of New York, Alexandria, Nicasio, Cortez, what would be the impact is based on your general assessment of knowing what their views are what would be the impact if we were to implement their views on the economy. Well, I mean the impact would be dramatically less growth.

I think most of the goals would not be accomplished in terms of it.

If the goals truly are to lift to help the poor and the lower classes. I think what what do we do is ultimately make everyone worse off, including the people are trying to make better off. It's a fascinating piece that Dr. Roy Coronado has written you can find it real clear policy.com and at John lock.org Sanders and Nicasio Cortez are not socialist is the headline so what are they writes a great piece and encourage everyone to read it. Thank you for joining Tom about it. Thank you. Say with this much more Carolina journal radio to come in just a moment government plays a key role in your life affecting your paycheck the way you educate your kids the way you do business. How can you tell if government is doing a good job making the right choices. Spending tax dollars wisely.

Carolina journal.com tackles those questions every day. The John Locke foundation publishes Carolina journal in print each month and on the web each day@carolinajournal.com you'll find exclusive investigative reports on topics. No one else is covering what else a rundown of the best new stories, editorials and opinion columns in North Carolina. John Hood's daily Journal news stories and important public events@carolinajournal.tv and the voices of the newsmakers themselves at Carolina journal radio in print on the air and on the web. You can find the information you need@carolinajournal.com welcome back to Carolina journal radio why Michiko got few of us would dispute the notion that Donald Trump is a very different kind of American president, but our next guest says that at least one aspect of trumps presidency, the emphasis on performance is a trait shared with others in our political leadership.

That common trait is having a major impact on political institutions.

That's the argument from you've all been editor of national affairs and author, most recently of the fractured Republic joins us now to discuss this issue. Thanks for joining us. Thank you so that this really is something that people who follow Donald Trump closely have notices that he does as in his previous career as a television celebrity really seemed to look at this position as a place to be a performer yeah it's really extraordinary when you watch Trump do it because he eat his understanding of the presidency not really having been shaped in the in by the kinds of experiences that really every past president, one where others had it as an elected official or as a senior military officer Trump is not been shaped by those institutions is really been shaped by his experience as a media figure as a celebrity. Frankly, and thinks of the presidency is maybe just the biggest stage she's ever had for the performance that has been his public life and he approaches it. That way we can see that a lot of us as we can see it with the way in which, for example, on Twitter trouble often behave as a commentator and talk about something that the Department of Justice is done that it shouldn't of done you know they work for him and he might've told him to do otherwise. It's almost as though he's watching television and yelling at the television. As all of us do from time to time.

Except this television would actually do what he says if he put in the right way and so there is definitely a way in which this is a performative presidency to a greater degree than reduced to what I would say that it's not it's not entirely his innovation. Our politics has been moving in this direction for a while there a lot of ways in which Pres. Obama saw himself also as a kind of performer first and foremost we also see an utterance in our other institutions. That was one of the points that you made a recent presentation of the John Locke foundation is that is not just crop whose being the performer but were seeing that among embers of Congress people in the judiciary. Other members of our society. How does this issue of treating these political institutions as the basis or the stage for your performance affected the answer. So I think that this is really selling is happening across the range of our institutions in American life where we've gone from expecting them to be fundamentally formative that is giving shape to the way the people within them behave in giving even shape to the character of those people being more performative to being platforms for people to perform on you can see it in a lot of our privacy as you can see in the universities where a lot of people have gone from thinking of the University as a place to be shaped to be formed by certain kind of liberal education to instead be a place to perform a place to show off their there more of the to display their moral vanity in one way or another journalism is moved in this direction a lot of ways and certainly a political institutions have a member of Congress today will often think of the institution as a platform for himself or herself as a way to build their national profile to get on television and radio as a way to become a kind of political celebrity and often times that means that they're not thinking about the institution.

Fundamentally, as a legislature and therefore are not fighting for the prerogatives of the institution and so we see in Congress become weaker are not fighting for their own roll their own place in the legislative process, but instead are just happy to use the institution as a way to raise their profile and so a lot of what they do. Also is performative, that is the voice of your ball up in editor of national affairs, author, most recently of the book, fractured Republic. I guess there is some irony about to political observers talking about this exactly on the radar address FM radio show. How has this transformation into politics is sort of performance art had negative consequences in your view, well the basic trouble is that in doing this other thing they're not doing their basic work. They're not playing the part that the Constitution expects them to play and so Congress has a very important role in our system. The primary role the Formosan central role and it is expected to be a very strong legislature when its members are expected to be motivated by an ambition that is channeled through their institution. When it doesn't happen.

Congress doesn't do its job and Congress doesn't insist on its prerogatives doesn't pass legislation that compels the other branches of government in the way that it is expected to by the framers of the Constitution.

And that's part of why we've seen the Congress become weaker over time and leave a lot of important judgments and decisions to the executive branch of the one hand, and the administrative state and to the judiciary on the other hand, conservatives like me are in the habit of complaining about executive overreach and judicial overreach and were right to complain but a lot of this is a function of congressional under reach and of of a a an unwillingness on the part of the Congress to do its fundamental job which has to do with the fact that members are actually really doing a different job you find the same thing happening with judges, you know, he read a Rita Supreme Court opinion by Justice Kennedy now you're just watching somebody perform if someone's putting on a show for you to to prove to just how just how morally is what is not doing is what a judge to do is interpret the law on the Constitution. We think of this as a kind of judicial activism judicial overreach, but it is also a performance and suffers from the same problems that we find in the Congress and in the presidency. How much of this is a function of the fact that we have much larger and more available stage space you absolutely it's true there more places to perform their more ways to become celebrity. What this meant is that a lot of our other institutions of been transformed themselves into stages from the judicial bench to the floor of the Congress we see in these places transform into performative spaces, no doubt because there are many more ways to get in front of of the public what we do about it. Well I think what's required is some recovery of institutional ambition, and frankly, the only way for that to happen is for the people who occupy these positions to wanted to happen. That means making the case for why a member of Congress ought to see a stronger Congress as serving his own ambition and and and political interests. Why Pres. ought to see being the chief executive is the way to as the way to become an important figure in American life in American history when judge should see actually interpreting the law as the way to become important. Play the role are supposed to play that takes argument and so really takes this kind of conversation is one of the problems the fact that no one has really paid a price for being one of these performers be, but we rarely see people getting voted out because they seem to be playing more to the cameras than doing their job. Yeah, no question about it. I think that so this argument, it has to be made has to be made to voters for certainly are unhappy with Congress read through the approval rating of Congress to mean it doesn't reach much beyond immediate relatives of members and staff. But nonetheless, voters don't respond to that dissatisfaction by insisting that members return to an idea of what the member of Congress is supposed to do that's better and try to the Constitution.

Certainly, the president benefits from being a performer, or at least he thinks he does every president's ever recent presidents thought so and so again the political pressure has to be there to compel our politicians to do with the required to do our system of government that calls for better citizens and that's no small challenge. Obviously, given what you know about the people involved in the process. Do you see anyone out there who is willing to move away from this politics is performance art sort of soil. I think it would take institutionalists and so there are some in in in our various branches of government. This president is a performer and that's not going to change. I think the question is whether the incentives will be there for someone to run after him by making a case that the president has a particular job and I to do that particular job. It's a fascinating topic one person who's going to continue to monitor this issue very closely. Is your ball up in editor of national affairs, author, most recently of the book the fractured Republic. Thanks much for joining secular much will have on Carolina internal radio and just if you have freedom we got great news to share with you now.

You can find the latest news, views, and research from conservative groups across North Carolina all in one place North Carolina conservative.com. It's one-stop shopping. North Carolina's freedom movement and North Carolina conservative.com. You'll find links to John Locke foundation blogs on the days news Carolina journal.com reporting and quick takes Carolina journal radio interviews TV interviews featuring CJ reporters and let foundation analysts, opinion pieces and reports on higher education from the James Dean Martin, Center for academic renewal, commentary and polling data from the scimitar's Institute and news and views from the North Carolina family policy Council. That's right, all in one place North Carolina conservative.com that's North Carolina spelled out conservative.com North Carolina conservative.com.

Try it today. North Carolina is changing not just day-to-day but outward to our minute to minute and 2nd to 2nd, how can you keep up with the changes, especially the ones that affect you, your family, your home, your job, make the John Locke foundation and Carolina journal part of your social media diet on Facebook like the John Locke foundation like Carolina.

Journal follow us on Twitter at John Locke in C and at Carolina journal news, insights and analysis you'll find nowhere else.

Thanks to the experts at the John Locke foundation and thanks to the first-class investigative reporting of Carolina journal. Don't wait for the morning newspaper. Don't wait for the evening news if it's happening now it's happening here the John Locke foundation and Carolina journal. Have you covered with up to the second information like us on Facebook the John Locke foundation and Carolina journal follow us on Twitter at John Locke NC and at Carolina journal did you know you can now advance freedom and free markets just by shopping with Amazon it's true online shopping is now a great way to support the John Locke foundation just shot using the Amazon smile program and designate past the work foundation to receive a portion of your purchase amount that's right you shop and Amazon donates money to assess the John Locke foundation. So here's how it works long time to smile.amazon.com Amazon smile. It's the same Amazon you know same products same prices is much better. Amazon donates .5% of the price of your eligible purchases to pass the John Locke foundation to try it. Be sure to designate the Locke foundation is a nonprofit, you want to support.

It's that easy.

So now not only will you enjoy what you buy will also support freedom. Don't forget log on to smile.amazon.com today by something nice and help defend freedom. Support the John Locke foundation will go back Carolina journal radio I Michiko guy what is it mean to engage in conservative politics. Of course there's more than one definition. John Locke foundation chairman John Hood has one.

It's fairly simple. He shared it recently during a speech for the leadership Institute in Washington DC. I think the simplest way to describe that is why Margaret Thatcher wants to when she simply said the facts of life are conservative but set the point being, conservatism, and if you think about it it's it's an alliance it's an amalgam of some very different strains of thought from traditionalists to libertarians to the Hawks. What binds this sort of unwieldy coalition together is an acceptance of reality as it is and that is not to say that one except the current state of affairs as well. This is the best we can do. That's not at all what this means is Francis Bacon said nature in order to become tooth to be commanded must be obeyed. In other words, if you want to make a change in human affairs. You need to start with something that is unchangeable, which is human nature and if you think about it all the strands of conservative thought. Take as their starting point, something that is unchanging. If you are traditionalist or a social conservative you believe there are certain virtues or traditions or institutions that have proven themselves over time to be valuable and enduring and in support of a human flourishing your libertarian free marketeer believe there are certain inescapable facts of life. Scarcity, desire to make something better for yourselves and your family which we call self-interest is actually not just about the self.

It's about something broader than the self and these are honest, inescapable realities, you might want things to be the same that they were 20 years ago. The technologies changed. People have gone and done something different and you can't put the genie back in the bottles, unchangeable, and similarly, if your foreign policy conservative your heart. You recognize that we can dream all day long and make up songs about a Maginot, you know, no national borders and no having to know Helen things like that. But the reality is worlds populated by people who want to steal you and knock you over the head and take your stuff so you better protect yourself is just part of reality, so my definition of conservative politics is the practice of the facts of life, applying them to reality. That's John Locke foundation chairman John Hood speaking recently in Washington DC who defined the term conservative politics during a presentation for the leadership Institute will return with more Carolina journal radio in a moment where doubling down on freedom at Carolina journal radio were proud to bring you stories that impact your life and your wallet. And now get twice as much freedom when you also listen to our podcast headlock available on iTunes and@johnlocke.org/podcast headlock is a little bit different. It's a no holds barred discussion that challenges softheaded ideas from the left and the right, like Carolina journal radio headlock is smart and timely but with headlock you'll hear more about the culture wars get some more humor as well. We guarantee great information and a good time to double down with S. Listen to Carolina journal radio each week and listen to headlock to remember, you can listen to headlock@johnlocke.org/podcast or subscriber download each week iTunes Carolina journal radio and headlock just what you need to stay informed and stay entertain both brought to you in the name of freedom by the John Locke foundation. Welcome back Carolina journal radio I Michiko got private property rights are critical to a free society.

Why our next guest will help us discuss that topic. Ilia Sillman is professor of law at George Mason University and he recently discussed property rights and the Constitution during a speech at North Carolina State University.

Thanks for joining us. Thank you very much for having me. So before we get to some current controversies involving property rights is reminds why is this such an important issue that people ought to be paying attention to for several reasons. First, property rights are an important element of freedom more generally.

Without the right to private property is hard to have a free society virtually impossible. It's hard for individual citizens to exercise their autonomy.

In addition, development economists have increasingly found that secure property rights are essential to economic growth, particularly in poor nations and also for poor people within our own society as well.

What does our Constitution say about property rights and protecting the Constitution has several provisions protecting property rights. Perhaps the most important is the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, which says that the government can only take private property for public use and also must pay just compensation. In addition, there is the due process clauses of the fifth and the 14th amendment, which ensured that government cannot take away your property without due process of law. Obviously, each of these provisions under meeting is been the subject of much controversy, but all I think, properly interpreted, do provide significant protection for property rights are also other provisions that protect them indirectly has support for private property rights waxed and waned it all. Over the years. Definitely service currently in the early Republic, protecting property rights was one of the main objectives of the federal Constitution was one of the reasons why the founders set it up in the first place. Also, while there was a lot of debate over property rights in the 19th century and over the meaning of these provisions that have just described. Still generally speaking, the dominant view in state and federal courts and also among legal experts about time was that there should be strong judicial protection for property rights that began to wane in the progressive era in the late 19th and early 20th century, and a least with respect to judicial review by federal courts.

It collapsed almost entirely. After the new Deal era for beginning from the 1930s to roughly the 40s and into the 50s. There is been somewhat of a revival over the last 30 years, though I think that revival falls short in some places and it's still highly controversial but overall there has been a challenge to what used to be the post-new Deal orthodoxy which said that the judiciary should provide little or no protection for property rights. That is the voice of Prof. Ilya Sillman of George Mason University. He has discussed property rights in the Constitution during a speech at North Carolina State University. Also the author of the grasping hand, kilo versus city of New London and the limits of eminent domain and also if you are interested in learning a little bit more about eminent domain. One of the people involved in the book eminent domain. A comparative perspective. Now we were talking generally about property rights, but there are also some current controversies involving property rights.

What's one of the main ones you're watching right now one big one that perhaps many of you have seen in the news is going on in Houston right now as I think most people know large parts of Houston were flooded during hurricane Harvey but some parts that were spared by the hurricane itself were deliberately flooded by the US Army Corps of Engineers on the theory that doing so might avoid still greater flooding that might've happened if certain water reservoirs overflowed, but obviously these people who had their homes or businesses flooded at the behest of the government deliberately flooded their pretty angry about it is understandable and they filed large numbers of lawsuits in federal courts.

I think dozens of them, arguing that this was a taking of their property by the government and therefore deserves compensation. A couple of years ago, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Obama administration somewhat extreme argument that deliberate flooding of property by the government can never be a taking, but the court was somewhat vague under the questionable exactly when his deliberate flooding a taking and when it's not. Unfortunately, in the present litigation.

The federal government in the Trump administration is taking the position that if the flooding happened only one time. It's never a taking no compensation. Critics call this the one free flood rule. I think that this doesn't make much sense that if the government inflict severe damage on your property by flooding it. It should be considered a taking. They may have a good reason for doing it, just as they may have a good reason, sometimes for taking your property to build a road or some other public facility, but the Constitution I think still requires the payment of compensation. In such cases, so I think these Houston cases are not only important itself in themselves.

With her large numbers of people involved but they will likely set important precedents for future situations like this is sadly this probably won't be the last time that the government deliberately flights property you're also watching. I understand another piece of property rights information that deals with the Trump administration, and specifically Atty. Gen. Jeff sessions. Yes, this relates to the practice of asset forfeiture which is a technical legal term for a kind of legalized plunder that the government engages in. Basically if you are investigator suspected of a crime in many states and also in some federal government programs, they can government can seize your property and keep it. Even if you yourself are never charged with a crime, much less convicted of one they can do this on the theory that your property was somehow involved in the crime may be drug dealers. Use your car to do a drug sale or something of the sort and in many states, the seizure can occur in such a way that the owners have very little opportunity to challenge it. The government may hold onto it for many months before they can challenge the seizure. Any when you can. The procedures often are stacked against the owners there than reform efforts. In many states to try to fix this problem by in recent years increasingly induced states where reform efforts have cracked down on this practice, both by limiting seizures and also limiting the ability of law enforcement agencies to keep the plunder for themselves. This is been gotten around by the state law enforcement working with federal government and what is known as equitable sharing.

So in technical lingo, the federal government adopts the taking to adopt the seizure, and then they distribute some of the loop back to the state law enforcement agencies that is getting around state law prohibitions. This program was curbed late in the Obama administration but Atty. Gen. Jeff sessions reinstated it fully over the summer in Congress. Their efforts to abolish the sessions policy to amendments that would do this nearly unanimous. We passed the House of Representatives. The broad bipartisan support both left and right have reasons to be angry about this.

The issue is now before the Senate, where it also has some bipartisan support, but obviously it's easier to obstruct bills in the Senate in various ways in the house, so people mentioned this issue I think will be watching to see what happens in the Senate. If people hear the words property rights in their eyes start to glaze over what would you say to them about no, no, you need to pay attention to this. This is important.

Property rights structure our lives in many different ways. Whenever you buy a house whenever you engage in many kinds of transactions. Property rights are involved. Moreover, property rights are essential to economic development. That's one of the major functions of the major findings of modern development economics in cities where property rights are severely restricted.

It destroys a great deal of wealth both in this country and abroad, particularly for the poor.

Prof. Ilya Sillman of George Mason University X much for joining us. Thank you very much for having me a lot more on Carolina journal radio just a moment commitment to truth and transparency in government. That is the mission of Carolina journal and we are proud to deliver and now proud to tell you the North Carolina press Association has honored to members of our team with awards reporting and writing, that's right, we really do deliver award-winning journalism we shine the light on government spending, reveal the truth about boondoggles and dig deep into programs paid for with your tax money. We keep you in the know in a way other media outlets don't in our reach and influence are growing to all of our outlets. We reach more than 1 million N. Carolinians each month so make sure you're one of them. Our monthly print edition arrives in your mailbox every month.

Our online daily news site Carolina journal.com has fresh stories, opinion pieces, and more. The award-winning Carolina journal team I reporters make government accountable to you. Call 1866 JL FINFO for your free subscription, welcome back to Carolina journal radio I'm Donna Martinez expanded access to doctors and hospitals at a lower cost.

And now that is the goal that most folks can agree on, regardless of ideology when it comes to reforming our healthcare system. Our next guest says that a good first step toward meeting that goal is to take a very serious look at a North Carolina law that works against the expansion of options and against bringing down costs. Jordan Roberts is the new healthcare policy analyst for the John lock foundation. He joins us. Now Jordan was Michelle nice to have you witnessed think you got a beer in a nutshell explained to us what were talking about here. This law is technically called a certificate of need, but what does it do what you require.

That's right so certificate of new laws were put in place arm a couple decades ago in an attempt to lower healthcare costs by limiting their supply of healthcare services that are provided so what ends up happening is if you are a physician that wants to provide a new service or a existing facility.

The monster expand. You need to go to a state planning board and prove to them that there is a need to provide the service at levels higher than what is already been provided.

You'd submit an application and the state would look at their data to see if they project a similar need, and then they would either grant access, or deny access to what ends up happening is you have government bureaucrats that are really deciding what who can enter into the healthcare market and not really have some adverse effects for a lot of consumers him and our providers. What you found in your research at Jordan and it's really interesting because you been writing about this, and folks can read your blog in the locker room at at John Locke.org, you found that down North Carolina. I wasn't by far not the first state to do this and certainly this writing going on for decades and decades and decades tells about the history of con laws. So what I found was that the certificate in the vase really came about in that as far back as the 1800s, and there were used to regulate businesses and industries are like the railroads, public utilities, things like this and they were implemented to try to have reduced wasteful duplication of services. Back then, and what people referred to as ruinous or bad competition. So take the railroads.

For example, what would happen is there were laws in place that would restrict the railroads from charging market rates to their customers and so in an attempt to keep the railroad companies they were already in existence profitable the state would use certificate of need laws and attempt to insulate this current railroad providers from any type of competition. So, from the earliest onset is related example of cronyism and so there was a lot of farm near progressive ideas during the 1800s.

At this time. And so it wasn't uncommon for the state legislatures to try to regulate business to this extent. Now when you fast-forward into that. The 1900s than North Carolina among a number of states that still have certificate of need laws in place in Jordan when people listening to us might be thinking you know what it sounds like the motives of the people who support this kind of thing might be good there trying to quote protect people from high prices.

It etc., but as you mentioned earlier there's really a lot of negative consequences that come with this that people may not realize this talk about some of those that you been writing about you talking about reducing the access to healthcare as a con law do that. So by limiting the amount of competition that you can target a incumbent hospital provider can have it really just limits the number of choices that patients have to go and get care.

So we see is that states that have certificate in the vase they have much fewer rural healthcare rural hospitals and other healthcare substitutes like this and now these types of counties and the patients that are in states with certificate in the vase have to travel much further to get the same types of our procedures done that other similar citizens would have to travel in states without certificate of new bars and there's also you know the thought that these this rate really raises costs so a lot of the procedures that can be done in hospitals that are protected by certificate of need laws from any type of competitors charge a lot more orbit said ACL surgery and so if you were to get this ACL surgery done in the state without a certificate of need law you might have a lot more options to get it out a lot lower cost facilities, so these laws really what they do is they protect incumbent providers by not allowing any competitors to come into the market in charge lower lower rates for the patient is that the really important point because set a few minutes ago, when you describe that what the original intent of a con law is one of the things was sent to reduce the so-called oversupply but yet what really happens in the real world is as you said there some people who may live in out in an outline County. They may have to drive miles upon miles to try to actually access the service.

It seems like that because that's the reality of it that you would have state lawmakers who would Satan wait a second, maybe were off track here with this, right.

So the intent is to bring down costs by limiting the supply. The thought is that if you reduce the amount of unused equipment or unused bags that would bring down overhead costs across the board. But when you limit the supply you really limit the competition and the options that consumers have and these incumbent providers can use this market power to really charge whatever rates they want answer really just dictate who can come in and compete with them to get access to the same patient population and talk about real-world impact not only on patients but time recently here at the John Locke foundation. We hosted a Forsyth County doctor who is in the process of trying to fight this certificate of need law as it relates to his practice and he's trying to be able to offer MRI services to his patients give us kind of the Reader's Digest version of what his issue is and how it's impacting his patients right so the case River enters Dr. Singh and he opened a an imaging center in our Forsyth County and you was able to acquire mostly equipment to provide all the services he wanted to accept an MRI machine in the state regulates MRI machine usage and Forsyth County hospitals out all the certificate needs for this so he applied to the state to say that he wanted to offer lower rates to patients in Forsyth County and the state said no there is no need for this, even though the patient's as Dr. Singh will tell you, there's plenty of them coming up to him saying that we can't afford the MRI and other imaging services that hospitals are charging and we need we need these services. During Sarah Dr. Singh went out try to provide the service in the state simply said no. This is no need for this. This is so curious that someone sitting in Raleigh and no disrespect meant to people who are doing their job as part of a state agency they're following the rules that are in place in the law that's in place, but it just seems really quizzical that they would think that they could actually assess this, the so-called need when you got a doctor right there thank my patients need this service and I want to offer and why won't you let me do that right so you know it really is quite something to think about the.

The state planning boards in Raleigh think that they know the needs of the patients at community level better and so I just think about, so that's not the way to this type of firm regulation should go forward and what it should do. We been talking with Jordan Roberts. He is the healthcare policy analyst for the John Locke foundation. He's in a really fascinating piece about this law, we've been discussing. It's called the North Carolina certificate of need law Jordan, thank you so much appreciate it. Thank you for having me. That's all the time we have for the program this week. Thank you for listening on behalf of my cohost Mitch. Okay I'm Donna Martinez hope you'll join us again next week for another edition of Carolina Journal radio Carolina Journal radio is a program of the John lock foundation to learn more about the John Locke foundation donations and support programs like Carolina Journal radio send email to development John Locke done or call 1866 GLM info 166-553-4636 Carolina Journal radio is the John Locke foundation Carolina's free-market think tank and Carolina broadcasting system, Inc. all opinions expressed on this program are solely those do not merely reflect the advertisers organization for more information about the show or other programs and services of the John lock foundation. John lock.toll-free at 866 JL and would like to thank our wonderful radio affiliates across North Carolina and our sponsors. Carolina Journal radio. Thank you for listening. Please join us again next week


Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime