Comments on: Health Care’s Muddled Incentives

By: stop spam plugin

stop spam plugin — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:47:53 +0000

Gems form the internet…

[...]very few websites that happen to be detailed below, from our point of view are undoubtedly well worth checking out. Especially when they clean your website from spam better than askimet.[...]……

By: Joe Schmoe

Joe Schmoe — Fri, 15 Apr 2011 18:05:29 +0000

“Shall we call credit unions socialized banking? I just don’t see how a group of people getting together to finance the health of all participants via broker/investor arrangements can be construed as socialistic. I have always understood the term used to mean enforced participation. Pay or go to prison, that is socialism at its root.”

This was addressed in the article only one paragraph above the one you quoted!

By: mocarter

mocarter — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 21:42:39 +0000

I love the statement: “As long as government pays for medical care, there will be budget problems” but it doesn’t go far enough. The reason is that the government (we) is paying the cost of individuals’ bad choices in diet and lifestyle. If each person had to pay for the consequences of their actions, health care dollars needed would be fewer. The individual has control of their choices and without being forced to pay the consequences, there is no pressure to change. It’s like pregnancy, pay for your own abortion, don’t expect me to pay for it. Pay for your own baby. Heart disease? Quit eating meat. Cancer? How many fruits and vegetables do you consume every day? Choices and Consequences.

By: House Votes to Repeal Obamacare | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty

House Votes to Repeal Obamacare | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 13:12:54 +0000

[...] in the 2012 presidential campaign.” (Columbus Dispatch)The end of the line.FEE Timely Classic “Health Care’s Muddled Incentives” by Arnold KlingPost a Response Name Mail (will not be published) [...]

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 09:25:03 +0000

“I just don’t see how a group of people getting together to finance the health of all participants via broker/investor arrangements can be construed as socialistic.”

You’re forgetting the government tax incentives provided to employers for doing so (mentioned right above the part you quoted, no less). You pay less for your policy if you accept your employers health care than you do if you buy it out of your own money, since you pay taxes on income and the government has waived taxes on employee health insurance.

By: Drik

Drik — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 21:00:58 +0000

If you compare longevity among countries, leaving out homicide and car crashes, Americans have the longest lifespan in the western world.

How, exactly, is Obamacare going to improve on that?

Actually, if you read Al Gores book ‘Earth in the Balance’, you would find that the liberal/progressive/socialist plan involves taxing everyone out of cars and suburban houses and on to bicycles and and into inner-city apartments.

First step, per Presbo, is that energy costs (meaning the cost at the pump) “under my plan, will necessarily skyrocket”.

Definitely going to cut down on car crashes once Presbo has made it so you can no longer afford to drive anywhere.

Obamacare will do that.

By: David Beadles

David Beadles — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 13:54:50 +0000

It seems health care is the one area where people demand that one should receive more than what they pay for. People seem to grasp the concept that if you have a million dollar home your insurance premium will cost more than one for a 150,000 dollar home. In the case of health care the principle is skewed because the potential costs are open-ended no matter what one has been contributing towards the cost of the policy coverage.
Overcoming that and creating incentives to have people more vested in the cost seems to be a big part of reigining in costs

By: New Health Insurance Rules Kick in Today | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty

Thu, 23 Sep 2010 12:28:19 +0000

[...] Timely Classic “Health Care’s Muddled Incentives” by Arnold [...]

By: Dr. Jeph

Dr. Jeph — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:28:30 +0000

“Americans make extravagant use of medical procedures with high costs and low benefits. Thus the rise of premium medicine also coincides with a rise in wasteful spending”–Of course…..somebody other than the patient (who makes he demand) is paying for it! And doctors, who do not bear the costs of therapies they order, will order more if third parties will reimburse them for those therapies [a $1000 cost-to-doctor of chemotherapy is reimbursed to the doctor at $4000]. What oncologist WOULDN’T order it? And you can bet, at that rate, a study (also government funded) to support its use will be published.

And that is “why we do not then observe the market gradually filtering out the harmful innovations and retaining only the successful treatments”. i.e. the end-user is not the payor. Econ 101. Again.

By: Obama Medical Cost Cutting Is No Sure Thing | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:37:36 +0000

[...] Timely Classic “Health Care’s Muddled Incentives” by Arnold [...]