August 15, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

Nedcall responds to the “Consumer-based healthcare” post with this comment:

I once heard the US healthcare mess described with an analogy.
A man gets a new job with a very progressive company. He comes home to his wife and is very excited. “Honey”, he says, “this company is great. They not only have a great health care plan, but they recognize that another basic human need – even more basic than health care is food. We’re now participating in the new Blue Cross Food Care Plan. The deductible will be the same, no matter what we eat. No more Spam and potatoes for us. From now on it’s lobster and filet mignon. “

Well put! Anytime we place a resource in the commons, we lose the incentive to economize. In fact, an incentive to overconsume is created. Read this analogy written by Russ Robert from several years back, which was published in the Wall Street Journal. I have it posted in my classroom!

Posted in General post | 1 Comment »

August 15, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

John Stossel has something to say about farm subsidies.

Posted in General post | 1 Comment »

August 15, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

WSJ opinion today on healthcare (subscription required). It begins:

Reducing health-care spending isn’t hard: Just give the government control over the national health-care budget and you’ll see spending decline. Access to physicians and hospitals, the newest technology, important therapies and the best medications will also decline over time. But that’s the trade-off society makes when the government controls health-care spending.

It’s remarkable how gullible people are who claim, “Canada (or England, or France, etc.) manages to provide universal coverage for much less than the U.S. spends on health care.” They seem to think these other countries have reached some sort of economic nirvana. These countries spend less — usually between 8% to 10% of GDP versus nearly 16% in the U.S. — simply because health-care spending isn’t a function of consumer demand; it’s a function of political demand.

Politicians in single-payer countries — where the public pays higher taxes and the government pays most bills — decide how much the country will spend on health care, and the prices that will be paid. Since they have to consider education, welfare, defense, etc., as well as the need to keep taxes low enough to encourage economic growth, there is never enough money to go around. There is not one government-run health-care system that is considered adequately funded by those who have to deal with it. In some countries, the rationing, lack of access and waiting lines are worse than others. But they all face these problems.

And virtually any U.S. reform proposal promising “universal coverage” will do the same thing. Why? Because Congress has a long and sordid history of support for health-care price controls.

Also today in the WSJ opinion section: why Arnold should return to acting. His health care plan is likely to be a bigger flop than Last Action Hero, if that’s possible.

Posted in General post | 1 Comment »