Month: October 2024

Starmer is intent in creating more problems for himself

The government intends to introduce a ban on TV advertisements of junk food before 9 PM, a proposed tax on salt and foods high in fat, sugar and salt (HFSS), and a strengthened version of the previously failed Tobacco and Vapes Bill that extends the prohibition of smoking to outdoor space.

This comes as a set of so called preventative measures to bolster public health.

In a statement, Mike Salem, UK Associate for the Consumer Choice Center (CCC), argued that this is not the right approach to improve public health:

“Time and time again, we have seen failures of policymakers to understand what “preventative measures” actually mean. The reality is that taxing these goods will only hurt the worse off, who will continue to consume these products, at a distorted price or downgraded quality.”

Salem added that taxes on goods create a “deadweight loss”, which is a loss of welfare for everyone, including consumers, producers, and the government due to markets not reaching equilibrium.

Read the full text here

Reduce wait times by allowing patients to seek care of out of country

The European Union has set an example for how to reduce health-care waitlists. Canada should follow suit

It’s no secret that if you need elective surgery in Canada, you’d better be prepared to wait for a very long time.

Is the problem a shortage of doctors and nurses? Underfunding? Administrative inefficiency? Pretty much everything has been blamed at one point or another. Despite decades of attempts at reform, long wait times continue to be a problem across Canada.

No matter the cause, we know the result: long wait times, lost income, chronic pain and, in some cases, avoidable patient deaths.

Canada is not the only country to be plagued with such issues. Some European nations have had to deal with long wait times, as well. The difference is that they were able to resolve the problem. Part of their solution came from what’s called the “Cross-Border Directive.”

This policy allows European patients to seek treatment in any EU member country and get their medical expenses reimbursed at a level equivalent to what their national health insurance plan would have covered.

Like most policy innovations, this directive emerged out of necessity. In the early 2000s, many British citizens found themselves struggling with long medical waitlists. But through their membership in the European Union, some saw an opportunity to address the delays.

One of these people was Yvonne Watts, who suffered from arthritis in her hips. Unable to get care from Britain’s National Health Service in anything resembling a timely fashion, she requested that it pay for a hip replacement in another EU country. She was declined.

Deciding to take the matter into her own hands, Watts had the procedure done in France at her own expense, paying the equivalent of $10,673 in today’s Canadian dollars. Post-operation, she requested reimbursement from the U.K. government, but again was refused.

Watts never was reimbursed for the cost of her surgery, but she did pave the way for the EU directive on patients’ rights in cross-border health care.

Today, patients in a situation like Watts can decide to receive elective surgery in another country when domestic wait times are too long.

Thanks to the Cross-Border Directive, over 450,000 EU residents sought treatment in another EU country in 2022 alone.

This policy has brought about a significant reduction in wait times, but it has another noteworthy side effect: it helps reduce the overall cost of individual ailments, both to the patients who suffer from them and the states that pay the bills.

This is because the longer a health problem goes untreated, the more the treatment will cost, due to an increased risk of complications. The longer people wait, the more likely it is that their intervention will need to be more invasive (and thus riskier) and will also require more resources to perform.

But the effect on spending is not the only one that needs to be considered. Health issues can have an adverse effect on government revenue, as well.

While elective treatments are not considered urgent, the ailments they hope to treat can still have an effect on our lives. For example, some of the people on waiting lists are workers who are unable to do their jobs, or who are forced to reduce their workloads, due to the pain they’re experiencing. Some are even on worker’s compensation.

Even looking at it solely from a revenue standpoint, it should still be in the state’s best interest to get those workers the treatment they need so they can start paying taxes again. Letting them obtain the required medical attention out of province or out of the country — for the same price the system would pay domestically — should be a no-brainer.

Let’s not forget just how many Canadians can’t get the treatment they need within the recommended timelines.

In 2019, 30 per cent of patients needing a knee implant were unable to receive it within the recommended 26-week period. By 2023, that number had climbed to 41 per cent. Similarly, the proportion of patients needing hip replacements who couldn’t get them within the established time frames rose from 25 per cent to 34 per cent over the same period.

Public coverage of a Canadian cross-border directive would help bring these figures closer to zero and address our substantial surgical backlog. This would allow Canada to better cope with patient needs and improve efficiency across the board.

Originally published here

Tingginya Harga Beras di Indonesia

Beras merupakan bahan makanan pokok yang sangat penting bagi jutaan penduduk di Indonesia. Oleh karena itu, politik kebijakan terkait dengan beras kerap menjadi isu yang sangat sensitif, karena kebijakan tersebut akan membawa dampak yang sangat besar bagi keseharian jutaan orang di Indonesia.

Terkait dengan kebijakan beras, salah satu aspek yang paling menjadi perhatian adalah ketersediaan beras yang bisa diakses oleh masyarakat. Sebagai salah satu negara penghasil beras terbesar di dunia, tidak mengherankan kalau banyak orang yang berharap adanya pasokan beras yang cukup sehingga mudah diakses oleh seluruh lapisan masyarakat.

Untuk tujuan tersebut, pemerintah memberlakukan serangkaian kebijakan, salah satunya adalah yang dikenal dengan kebijakan swasembada. Swasembada ini menitikberatkan pada kemampuan negara untuk bisa memenuhi kebutuhan pangan secara mandiri (self-sufficient), misalnya melalui pembatasan atau pelarangan impor. Tetapi, kebijakan yang diambil ini bukan tanpa konsekuensi, salah satunya adalah terkait dengan harga yang harus dibayarkan oleh masyarakat.

Bila dibandingkan negara-negara tetangga misalnya, yang juga menjadikan beras sebagai bahan pangan pokok mereka, harga beras di Indonesia termasuk salah satu yang tertinggi. Berdasarkan data bulan Februari lalu misalnya, harga beras di Indonesia berkisar Rp.18.000-18.500 per kilogram. Harga ini jauh di atas negara tetangga, seperti di Malaysia, yang bila dikonversi dengan rupiah, harga beras di negara tersebut sekitar Rp.6.240-9.984 per kilogram, sementara di Singapura sekitar Rp12.324 per kilogram (cnnindonesia.com, 20/2/2024).

Sementara itu, di negara tetangga lainnya, seperti Vietnam dan Thailand misalnya, yang juga merupakan negara penghasil beras di Kawasan Asia Tenggara, harga beras di kedua negara tersebut juga jauh di bawah Indonesia. DI Thailand misalnya, harga beras yang dijual sebesar 9.417 per kilogram, dan juga 9.091 kilogram di Vietnam (conversation.com, 27/5/2024).

Hal ini semakin memprihatinkan mengingat bahwa beberapa negara tetangga kita di atas memiliki tingkat penghasilan yang lebih tinggi daripada Indonesia. Malaysia misalnya, memiliki tingkat pendapatan per kapita 3 kali lipat lebih tinggi bila dibandingakan dengan Indonesia (statista.com,  4/7/2024). Selain itu, kalau Singapura tidak perlu dibahas lagi. Negara kota tersebut merupakan salah satu negara dengan tingkat pendapatan 17 kali lipat lebih tinggi dibandingkan dengan negara kita (statista.com, 4/7/2024).

Harga beras yang lebih murah, dan juga penghasilan yang lebih tinggi, membuat para penduduk di negara-negara tetangga kita di atas memiliki pendapatan yang siap dibelanjakan (disposable income) yang lebih tinggi, Dengan demikian, mereka memiliki uang yang lebih untuk untuk digunakan atau ditabung. Tingginya harga beras di Indonesia dibanding dengan negara-negara lain tentunya berpotensi membuat masyarakat Indonesia memiliki disposable income yang lebih kecil dibandingkan dengan penduduk di negara-negara lain di ASEAN.

Terkait dengan hal ini, para pembuat kebijakan di Indonesia sepertinya juga menyadari adanya fakta tersebut, dan memberi justifikasi bahwa penting agar bisa menyenangkan semua pihak, salah satunya adalah melalui kontrol harga. Padahal, adanya kebijakan dari pemerintah untuk mengontrol harga merupakan hal yang tidak tepat karena bisa merusak mekanisme permintaan dan penawaran, dan juga sangat sulit bagi pemerintah untuk bisa memiliki seluruh informasi yang cukup agar bisa menentukan harga komoditas tertentu dengan tepat.

Terkait dengan menjaga kepentingan produsen misalnya, hal ini tentu merupakan sesuatu yang penting, tetapi bukan berarti hal tersebut harus mengorbankan hak dari konsumen untuk mendapatkan bahan pokok pangan yang sangat penting seperti beras dengan harga yang murah. Thailand misalnya, juga merupakan salah satu negara negara produsen nasi terbesar di Asia Tenggara. Tetapi di negara tersebut, harga beras bisa lebih murah karena proses pengolahan beras di Thailand bisa lebih efisien dengan bantuan teknologi (finance.detik.com, 9/7/2019).

Tidak hanya mampu menyediakan beras dengan harga yang lebih terjangkau, penggunaan teknologi yang inovatif juga membuat kualitas beras menjadi lebih baik, seperti tidak cepat busuk, dan lain sebagainya. Hal ini diakui sendiri oleh Direktur Utama Bulog, yang memiliki peran untuk mengelola ketersediaan bahan pangan esensial di Indonesia, seperti beras, gula, terigu, dan lain sebagainya (merdeka.com, 17/1/2022).

Selain itu, sebagaimana yang sudah dibahas sebelumnya, kebijakan pembatasan impor juga berkontribusi terhadap permasalahan tersebut. Hal ini dikarenakan kebijakan pangan yang berdaulat merupakan salah satu platform kebijakan yang sangat popular di Indonesia, dan didukung oleh tidak hanya sedikit pihak.

Tetapi tentunya hal ini merupakan pandangan yang sangat keliru. Ekonom Universitas Institut Pertanian Bogor (IPB) misalnya, Manuntun Hutagol, menyatakan bahwa yang menjadi masalah bagi para petani di Indonesia adalah para petani diharuskan menjual gabahnya langsung ketika dipanen (republika.id, 1/2/2024).

Hal ini dikarenakan para petani di Indonesia banyak yang petani kecil dan tidak memiliki akses terhadap kredit bank, sehingga harus meminjam uang kepada rentenir. Agar bisa melunasi hitang tersebut, mereka akhirnya diharuskan untuk menjual hasil panennya dengan cepat. Apabila pemerintah melalui Bulog tidak memiliki cukup gudang untuk membeli hasil panen tersebut, maka hasil panen petani tersebut akan dijual kepada para agen dan operator penggilingan padi dengan harga murah.

Dengan dilarangnya impor beras, maka yang menguasai pasar beras di Indonesia adalah para pedagang dan agen serta para operator penggilingan padi dalam negeri. Mereka bisa mengendalikan harga beras di pasar, dan juga mendapat untung besar dengan cara membeli beras dengan harga rendah dari petani dan menjualnya dengan harga yang tinggi kepada konsumen (republika.id, 1/2/2024).

Oleh karena itu, kebijakan penutupan impor beras merupakan kebijakan yang keliru dan tidak tepat, dan justru membawa masalah seperti tingginya harga beras di Indonesia bagi para konsumen. Persaingan pasar yang bebas merupakan cara yang efektif agar pra produsen mengutamakan efisiensi dalam kegiatan produksinya.

Sebagai penutup, beras merupakan bahan pangan yang sangat esensial bagi masyarakat Indonesia. Dengan demikian, adanya kebijakan pangan dan pertanian beras yang tepat adalah hal yang sangat penting untuk diperhatikan oleh para pembuat kebijakan, dan harus memfokuskan pada puluhan juta rakyat yang menjadi konsumen dan mengonsumsi nasi setiap hari untuk memenuhi kebutuhan nutrisi mereka. Jangan sampai kebijakan yang dikeluarkan justru merugikan masyarakat hanya untuk menguntungkan segelintir pihak.

Originally published here

CCC Welcomes Vape Regulations, But Expresses Concern Over Effectiveness in Reducing Smoking Prevalence

KUALA LUMPUR, 4th October 2024 — The Consumer Choice Center (CCC) welcomes the newly introduced Control of Smoking Products for Public Health Act 2024 (Act 852), which seeks to regulate vape products and ensure consumer safety. However, Tarmizi Anuwar, Malaysia Country Associate at the CCC, expresses concerns over whether the regulations will achieve the desired outcome of reducing smoking prevalence, as well as the potential negative consequences for consumer choice and market competition.

“While ensuring consumer safety is vital, some of the proposed regulations, such as the retail display ban and online sales ban, could inadvertently push consumers toward unregulated markets and reduce access to safer alternatives,” said Tarmizi. “Retail displays of vape products allow consumers to make informed choices by providing transparency and fostering competition. Banning these displays will not only limit consumer awareness of vaping as an alternative to smoking but may also drive them toward less regulated and potentially unsafe options.”

Tarmizi also highlighted concerns regarding the ban on online sales, noting its disproportionate impact on small businesses and rural consumers. “The e-commerce sector is crucial for entrepreneurs and smaller players to compete with larger incumbents. Restricting online sales will isolate consumers in remote areas and stifle innovation in the market. Instead of an outright ban, the government should consider a regulatory framework that permits online sales with robust age verification measures, allowing for safer consumer access and more competitive pricing.”

The CCC believes that regulations should strike a balance between protecting public health and empowering consumers to make choices that align with their needs and preferences. While the aim of Act 852 is commendable, Tarmizi urges the government to reconsider certain restrictions and focus on policies that will have a tangible impact on reducing smoking rates while promoting safer alternatives like vaping.

A study titled Electronic Cigarettes for Smoking Cessation written by Hartmann-Boyce, J et al. (2022) found that vaping helps people quit smoking. This systematic review of 78 studies involved a total of 22,052 participants and said there is definite evidence that electronic cigarettes with nicotine increase the quit rate compared to nicotine replacement therapy and moderate certainty evidence that they increase the quit rate compared to electronic cigarettes without nicotine.

“We need to adopt an alternative that is much safer and proven effective for people who want to stop smoking. We hope to see an approach that prioritizes consumer education and product transparency, ensuring that smokers are fully informed about the benefits of harm-reduction tools like vapes,” Tarmizi concluded.

Reform the Bank Secrecy Act to better protect consumer financial privacy

Washington, D.C. – Last week, US Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Rick Scott of Florida introduced the Saving Privacy Act to reform banking and finance regulations to better safeguard the privacy and security of American consumers.

The bill would amend the Bank Secrecy Act, repealing the need for transactions to be reported to government authorities in “suspicious activity reports”. The bill would also ban a Central Bank Digital Currency, repeal the Corporate Transparency Act, require warrants for government acquiring personal financial information, require congressional authorization for major financial regulations, create a private right of action for those harmed by illicit government activity, and much more.

The Consumer Choice Center believes the bill is a noble, comprehensive, and creative effort at reforming consumer finance and should be championed by representatives in Washington.

“Rather than forcing banks to hound their customers for cash withdrawals to purchase cars, pay rent, or simply live their lives, Senator Lee’s Saving Privacy Act would restore consumer financial privacy and make reporting standards reasonable enough to still target malicious actors and criminals,” said Yaël Ossowski, Deputy Director at the Consumer Choice Center.

“The rigorous Know Your Customer standards from the Bank Secrecy Act have forced financial institutions to collect more information than needed from their customers, leading to the risk of data leaks, hacks, and breaches that have compromised consumer security and privacy.

“This has also forced finance providers to deny accounts to customers based on arbitrary criteria, cutting off consumers who are the least well-off from the innovative financial product market,” added Ossowski.

The bill would no longer require banks to submit compliance reports to financial authorities when they are over arbitrary limits, while at the same time protecting Fourth Amendment protections that have for far too long been curtailed by expansive government policy.

“Rather than dedicating insurmountable of time to compliance and surveillance on customers dealing in lower amounts, financial institutions also will be able to better compete for our business and better protect our financial privacy. This will free them up to focus on bad actors who are exploiting these rules. Consumers deserve no less,” concluded Ossowski.

The Consumer Choice Center supports the reforms behind the Saving Privacy Act, and will continue to champion for consumers who believe in tech innovation, lifestyle freedom, and freedom of choice.

###

Some Innovate, Others Regulate

In the fast-paced world of technological advancement, innovation is often hailed as the key to progress. Yet, while some regions focus on pushing boundaries, others seem to prioritize regulation. The result? Companies in these areas end up spending more time adapting to rules than creating groundbreaking products that improve consumers’ lives.

Housing Across North America: A Return to Affordability

The United States and Canada share more than a border and a culture of neighborliness, we also share some of the same problems: such as a housing crisis. Housing affordability is a major story across the whole of North America, with the US coming up short by 4 to 7 million units and Canada needing 3.5 million more homes by 2030 to restore affordability to 2003-04 levels (according to the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corp). What’s causing this housing crisis in North America and what can both the US and Canada do to overcome it?

ZONING AND LAND-USE REFORMS

According to the latest data from the National Association of Realtors, U.S. median rent in July 2024 has dropped steadily over the last 12 months, continuing a decline since inflation peaked at 9.1% in June 2022. This reduction tells us something about not just inflation, but the impact of a resurgence in housing construction after the pandemic shut everything down. Rental prices have notably decreased in cities like Austin, Nashville, and Phoenix, at the same time these metros have increased the supply of rental properties. A 2024 report from Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies identified restrictive zoning laws and slow construction as key factors in the housing shortage. During the pandemic, rising construction costs and zoning restrictions slowed development. In response, many state and local governments have reduced regulations and fast-tracked building permits to accelerate housing construction and alleviate high rents, offering concrete solutions at the local level. The American left and right are both coming to a singular realization, which is that zoning policy has created a series of arbitrary lines on city maps that base the development needs of today on a precedent set decades prior. When the libertarian Cato Institute and progressive Center for American Progress share the same view on zoning regulations, you know there’s a big problem. It’s time to go fully YIMBY.

Canada is no different than the US in this regard. Zoning regulations often prevent the conversion of abandoned commercial offices—now vacant due to remote work policies—into residential spaces. In Toronto, for example, rezoning applications can take at least nine months just to process, as highlighted by David Clement of the Consumer Choice Center in 2020. According to Clement, applicants must submit a vast array of documentation, including “an archaeological assessment, environmental impact study, transportation impact study, energy strategy, and public consultation report,” among others. The sheer complexity of this process deters many developers from even attempting it. The red tape amounts to a tax on production and erodes the profitability of any venture. So builders opt out.

Toronto has since made progress by eliminating exclusionary zoning rules that previously restricted how many and what types of homes could be built on a single lot. This change is crucial, as the housing shortage is partly due to overly burdensome regulations that hinder new housing development. Hopefully, other cities will follow Toronto’s lead, as places like Hamilton, Vancouver, and Ottawa continue to struggle with extreme housing affordability.

SUPPLIES AND TRADE WAR

Lumber just got a lot more expensive in North America, and it may get even worse. The U.S. Department of Commerce just recently doubled tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber imports from 8.05% to 14.54%. The tariff hike is part of a “routine process” meant to protect American industries from unfair trade practices, but consumers are left holding the bag in the form of sky-high costs and fewer places to live. Tariffs go both ways between the US and Canada depending on which national industry is being “protected”, but in the end, it amounts to a tax on U.S. builders and consumers. 

In the US, a strike has begun from the International Longshoremen’s Association, and the problem of housing stock and affordability will be worsened in the short and long term. Every day of new construction counts. According to the Wall Street Journal, key ports affected by the strike are major entry points for construction materials, heavy machinery, food, vehicles, and chemicals, which could lead to delivery delays across the country. Bill Flemming of Cumming Group warned that the strike’s effects on the construction industry will be immediate, and if it lasts longer than a week, delays could extend for weeks or even months due to backlogged ships and distribution issues. Steel imports and tools will come to a halt, freezing major projects that impact consumers by making construction more expensive for developers. 

The US and Canada both need to end the tit-for-tat on tariffs and let markets and competition shape the price of goods and services. When this is allowed to happen, consumers win.

en_USEN

Follow us

WASHINGTON

712 H St NE PMB 94982
Washington, DC 20002

BRUSSELS

Rond Point Schuman 6, Box 5 Brussels, 1040, Belgium

LONDON

Golden Cross House, 8 Duncannon Street
London, WC2N 4JF, UK

KUALA LUMPUR

Block D, Platinum Sentral, Jalan Stesen Sentral 2, Level 3 - 5 Kuala Lumpur, 50470, Malaysia

OTTAWA

718-170 Laurier Ave W Ottawa, ON K1P 5V5

© COPYRIGHT 2025, CONSUMER CHOICE CENTER

Also from the Consumer Choice Center: ConsumerChamps.EU | FreeTrade4us.org