Friday, July 17, 2009

Three Good Healthcare Articles

"Why We Must Ration Health Care" -- no, I am most definitely not suggesting that we should let the government take over health care and tell us what treatments we can receive. However, this article does make a good point-- there must be some limitation to what the public purse is going to spend on health care. A line has to be drawn somewhere.

"Budget Analyst Assails Cost of Congress' Health-Care Proposals"
-- This should come as no surprise. The House bill does little more than increase the federal government's responsibility to provide health insurance to everybody, at the sole expense of higher income people. Aside from the repugnant redistributionism of the bill, it in no way changes the incentives of healthcare consumers or providers.

"Massachusetts Takes Big Step Away from Fee for Service" -- An excerpt: "A commission recommended this afternoon that the state turn away from the traditional "fee for service" model of paying for health care -- piecemeal payments for each procedure delivered. Instead, the commission said, the state should shift toward a system under which health-care providers would receive a sum to care for a given person or family, thereby providing an incentive to deliver care in a cost-effective way."

Sound anything like my "health membership" idea that I mentioned in a previous post?

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Shared Sacrifice for Reform

Today's Los Angeles Times has a piece here describing their take on the healthcare reform efforts going on in DC right now. Focusing on the financing of any reform, I completely agree with the Times that it should be funded by some sort of broad-based tax rather than a narrow tax aimed directly and solely at "the rich."

A healthy democracy is one in which everybody contributes to financing the expenditures of the government, rather than one in which certain subsets of people can vote for themselves more and more generous benefits at the expense of others. Beyond that, I won't even get into all the negative economic impacts of increasing the top marginal rates for people beyond 50%.