Don Boudreaux asks a wonderful question of Nancy Pelosi:
Reacting to Republican Scott Brown’s election to the U.S. Senate seat once held by Massachusetts’s Ted Kennedy, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that “Massachusetts has health care… The rest of the country would like to have that too. So we don’t say a state that already has health care should determine whether the rest of the country should” (“Gut-Check for Obama and Dems on Health Care,” Jan. 20).
Questions for Ms. Pelosi. If the citizens of Massachusetts are able, without any further legislation from Congress, to foist on themselves the kind of government-directed health-care that Ms. Pelosi alleges the rest of the country desires, what’s stopping people across America from doing in each of their states what the people of Massachusetts have already done in that state? Why does Congress have to act at all?
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
I would love to hear her answer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I can't speak for Pelosi, but I can give you the right answer. Congress doesn't have to act, but health insurance works better if it's implemented nationally.
ReplyDeleteUniversal health care works because of of the numbers. I'm not sure how many times the critics have to be told this. Massachusetts is a decent pilot program, but to really increase savings and increase standards of care the more people you can get the better. Shared risk works better when more people share it.
What's your evidence?
ReplyDeleteThere is no such thing as definative evidence for the United States because it has not been tried here. To let that stand in our way (given that there is good theory and comparables) would be regressive and close minded.
ReplyDeleteGood Theory and Comparables:
http://www.oecd.org/document/46/0,3343,en_2649_34631_34971438_1_1_1_1,00.html
http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34631_2085200_1_1_1_1,00.html
-Demonstrates the high cost of healthcare as a % of GDP compared with many similar countries (Canada for example) that have much lower cost of health care as a % of GDP and usually score better on standard of living metrics.
---------------------------------------------
http://www.nao.org.uk/idoc.ashx?docId=e902d344-ab56-4808-ab63-399241d33484&version=-1
-Fascinating and wonky report by the UK's National Audit Office.
---------------------------------------------
http://www.euro.who.int/document/e85400.pdf
-Similar report by WHO
---------------------------------------------
http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/CEA_Health_Care_Report.pdf
-Haven't read this in full, but I think it's on the same track
---------------------------------------------
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2008/07_healthcare_gruber/07_healthcare_gruber.pdf
-Finally, I'm hesitant to post this because it's the Brookings institution which clearly has a view to promote, but it is relevant.
I'm not convinced percentage of health care costs to GDP is a good measurement. I don't believe it controls for nearly enough variables (for example the US accounts for live births, fetal death and infant death differently than Europe does) and can be easily manipulated to suit one's agenda.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, it paints a very unclear picture. For example, "is our ratio higher than the average because our citizens have a lower relative preference for health care or are we just inefficient spenders/investors/consumers?
Finally it tells us nothing about quality, delivery, and other crucial factors.
I'll check out the other links later.