Some Libertarians are a problem too. Anyway, here's today's absurdity:
Cynthia Tucker, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's editorial page editor, recently wrote an article claiming that free markets make health care expensive. She states:In a country where capitalism is the state religion, it's hard to get people to admit that the profit motive doesn't improve every enterprise. Americans seem to think there is no problem that cannot be solved by some resourceful entrepreneur. But we're experiencing a crisis of faith in at least one area -- health care. The soaring cost of hospitals and medicines suggests that capitalism is sometimes at odds with the common good."This is why liberals don't excel in economics.
Well, last year a whole bag of economists signed a statement (pdf) saying the Bush tax cuts and economic proposals are full of Bushwah. I assume that makes them liberals.
How many economists are in that bag? I don't know, I didn't feel like counting that high. It was easy counting the Nobel Laurates that signed off on it, thought. There were eleven of them.
Sounds to me like a great number of liberals excel in economics.
Then Shay says there are "huge crunches [the] systems in Canada and France are currently facing." Every time I've heard that I've asked where that "information" came from. Nothing findable, much less documentable, was ever given to me, so I've given up. I write that off as a statement of faith.
Tucker ignores that when government got even more involved in health care in the 1980s (giving us HMOs), supposedly to reduce costs, instead the costs shot up.Assumption: She truly believes this. Response: Correlation does not imply causation. In fact, assuming the assertions here are facts, she could have the causation entirely reversed: costs rose, so the government decided to allow HMOs based on the promise of lower costs.
Next time the topic comes up, I'll talk about the role a for-profit health care system plays in rising costs. Prepatory study topic: what under what conditions does a for-profit venture voluntarily keep the price of its products stable?
She willfully ignores some facts: One, the American Medical Association works with state legislatures to limit doctors' licenses. Fewer doctors means higher doctor salaries, which means higher prices for us."To limit doctors' licenses"???
How, pray tell? By…testing their knowledge?
Two, malpractice insurance has gotten way out of control and tort reform is needed here.
Another statement of faith.
Three, doctors receive almost the same training whether they want to fix broken bones or do neurosurgery, which jacks up prices for all specialties.Too.
Bizarre.
Four, insurance companies are forbidden by law from charging fat people more money, even though they are mainly responsible for USA's health problems. This is a penalty on people who take care of our bodies, while overweight people don't pay the full costs of their choices.I hope you FINE AS HELL, be talking about folks like that…
I can't be sure, but I can't believe the law forbids charging fat people more money for insurance. I sort of thought that's what actuarial tables and health exams were for, and the "no pre-existing conditions" clauses.
Silly. Silly.
Posted by P6 at June 23, 2004 10:17 PM
Trackback URL: http://www.niggerati.net/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2411
Comments
We do not have a free market in health care any more than we have socialized medicine.
America has a jerry-rigged hybrid health care system that combines government subsidies and regulation with oligopolistic markets for drug manufacture, insurance and health care networks. Often we have the worst of all worlds, sometimes the best features of each but neither occurs in a logical or coherent fashion.
Posted by mark safranski at June 24, 2004 04:16 PM