Kling on Medical Care; Or, How Americans are Screwing Themselves

Brad's on the right track but it's also simply exposing health care insurance as anything but insurance. It's almost as ridiculous to insure the need for sex (somewhat frequent) with the need for routine health care (also somewhat frequent). In both cases when it seems free we partake without concern for cost.

In some cases the health care choices are very similar to a choice of using a prostitute. Elective cosmetic surgery is a good example of health care dollars going to what many consider frivilous.

Morgan's point is well taken. Showing how other things are or are not insured exposes the fundemental flaw in todays health insurance model.

Kling is looking to educate us by showing things in a different light or from a new point of view. Someone needs to to do it and break the issue down so more can understand.

Prostitution insurance to health insurance, to be clear. His hope is that, by changing the thing that's insured, he'll get people to look deeper than "health care is a basic human right" and other thought-stunting slogans to see the range of inefficiencies and outright absurdities in the current system. I've tried the same thing - replacing health care with cars - but few people seem to be willing to take the trip.

That's funny. I didn't read Kling's essay to be analogizing prostitution to health care. I read it analogizing prostitution to health insurance. But maybe I'm just stupid.

All prices are determined by both demand and supply. To paraphrase Alfred Marshall, to claim otherwise is to claim that only one blade of a pair of scissors does the cutting.

Correct. However, an increase in price can be due to one or the other.

All prices are determined by both demand and supply. To paraphrase Alfred Marshall, to claim otherwise is to claim that only one blade of a pair of scissors does the cutting.

Kling's analogy of prostitution to health care is, to put it mildly, silly. Even if he had just written a straight article on health care, his analysis suffers from his failure to understand that health care costs are not demand-driven, but, as actual experts in health care economics like Thomas Rice have convincingly argued, supply-driven.

Marc,

The DSM-IV begs to differ - with the "sex" part, maybe not so much the "casual" bit.

Not to undercut the analogy in terms of pure economics, but isn't the first objection to this going to be, "casual sex is not exactly a necessity of modern society?" Or maybe I'm a bit spoiled that way.

I just stumbled on that earlier today, well-done. ;-)

That's what passes for insight in libertarian circles these days?

What? I shouldn't reach around my back to scratch my nose? Perish the thought!

Great article.