Will Pres. Obama’s Health-Care ‘Reform’ Control Costs or Not?

Do you want "Controls" to appear as "Control"?

I don't think he's arguing that it's a model just yet - simply that it is where, in Krugman's words, there is "serious consideration" of how to move away from fee for service.

Anyway, what I find more disjointed isn't the claim about Massachusetts - I largely agree with that one. What I find inconsistent is Krugman's rush to a national public plan at all in light of problems at the state level still. The most recent post on my blog is one about exactly this - letting the states take the initiative on health reform the way they did with welfare reform. To the extent that any states perform especially well, those best practices can be applied elsewhere. Some things can and should be done nationally this year: eliminating the tax priveleges of employer coverage, adjusting Medicare fee-for-service, and perhaps expanding Medicaid somewhat if that seems appropriate. But I don't understand the logic of the rush to the national public plan. One thing I actually did find refreshing and different in this morning's article was that for once Krugman somewhat silenced the public plan drumbeat and outlined in broader terms what needs to be accomplished.

I'm amazed that Krugman, as the preeminent Keynesian today when it comes to macro policy, completely ignores Keynes's advice on reform:

"You are engaged on a double task, Recovery and Reform;--recovery from the slump and the passage of those business and social reforms which are long overdue. For the first, speed and quick results are essential. The second may be urgent too; but haste will be injurious, and wisdom of long-range purpose is more necessary than immediate achievement... even wise and necessary Reform may, in some respects, impede and complicate Recovery."

Good post Don - have a good weekend everybody.

Can't wait to vote for Romney in 2012. He'll really put an end to all this out-of-control healthcare nonsense President Obama's been trying to foist on us.

BTW, Don, I just watched the Reason TV episode on trade in which you appear throughout.

There are bikini clad babes, guys, so check it out.

BamBam's plan will will absolutely cut costs. He just told us to "embrace hospices as a legitimate option".

In reality, at some point, we will all have to "embrace hospice as a legitimate option", but in the government health care meat grinder, it'll be the government deciding when that will be instead of you and your family.

But, it's better, faster, cheaper!!!

This guy really thinks Americans are his Lordship's serfs.

This is all going to turn out well. We simply need to believe.

C'mon, Tinkerbell!

.

4 mayors, and people you would expect to be untainted by corruption were arrested yesterday for corruption.

They were rolled over by a different arrest.

How much health care money flows as graft?

I'm shocked! Do you mean to tell me that a government-run health insurance system is MORE expensive than other alternatives??!?!??!?

Who could have predicted such a thing?

But of course, the Obama-Nation Health System will be much cheaper than Romney-Care. Just ask the Annointed One.

Unlike Krugman, you do not see the wisdom of the Magnificent One.

Obamacare (which Obama wants passed, but has yet to read - just as the MA police acted stupidly, although he is not familiar with the details of what happened because he was too busy donning verbal black-face to speak to his "homies" at the NAACP) is, in fact, better, faster, cheaper and allows more access than the system we have now.

How can this be?

Well, according to Obama's glorious speechifying, MILLIONS of Americans are rolling around in the gutters and dying like mangy dogs in the streets for lack of basic healthcare and millions more are forced to make heavy sacrifices of beer, pizza and 52-inch plasmas to scrape together the money to buy health insurance coverage which never covers anything because the first time you need a cast for Timmy's broken arm, the insurance company drops you like a hot potato.

He will fix all that by allowing everyone to die waiting for healthcare in or around the hospital as they wait to get referrals from their overloaded primary care physicians. So, you do get access to the hospital, it's better than dying in the gutter and it's cheaper than actually treating you. Or at least, he thinks that's probably in the bill but will confirm when he finally gets around to reading it - hopefully around 3-6 months after it's rammed through congress and passed into law.

If the solution is unappealing to you, don't worry. If you can afford it, Cuba is just a short plane ride from Florida and I'm sure Doctors Without Borders will eventually commence operations In the USSA - that is, if they don't close the borders to stop desperate, overtaxed and unemployed people fleeing this great land of ours to find jobs in Mexico.

Think it can't happen here?

"... And just last month, Cato Institute scholar Michael Tanner reported that "since the program became law, insurance premiums have been increasing by 10 to 12 percent per year, nearly double the national average...."

This must be referring to subsidized plans. My private MA mandated plan has had sequential premium changes of approximately minus 1% and plus 3% the last two years. In addition, my mandated plan (single)is between $2000 and $4000 cheaper per annum than my previous non-group plan with the same vendor, depending on deductible use. The savings likely come from a combination of the deductible and a pooling for individuals with small business plans.

Regards, Don

4 mayors, and people you would expect to be untainted by corruption were arrested yesterday for corruption.

Did you miss the part where they were in New Jersey? How can you expect anything in New Jersey to be free from corruption?

I saw the video too Sam... I wonder if the good professor was disappointed he didn't get to be in any scenes with the women...

Don Lloyd -

I had the same reaction to the cost data. Massachusetts costs, as I understand, were growing faster than national costs before the reform - and that's not very surprising. It's also not surprising that a program costs more than people expect it to.

The most important datapoint, it would seem to me, would be the difference in cost growth of private vs. public plan, and yet that's the very datapoint the Cato analysis omits. It does make you wonder why they omitted it - but I honestly expect it is the subsidized people, and that they are growing faster than private plans.

This pub goes into more detail on why they might be growing faster: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411820_mass_he..., it specifically mentions the subsidized pool, and describes why that trend shouldn't continue if it is simply the subsidized pool.

But all this reinforces the underlying point - look closely at what's going on in the states and what they get right and what they get wrong before doing anything drastic.

better link: http://tinyurl.com/mz3yfa</p>

The most important datapoint, it would seem to me, would be the difference in cost growth of private vs. public plan, and yet that's the very datapoint the Cato analysis omits. It does make you wonder why they omitted it

I think it's because the claim was that this would make health care in Massachusetts Better, Faster, Cheaper!(TM) and Cato's point is that it's not.

Methinks -

RE: "I think it's because the claim was that this would make health care in Massachusetts Better, Faster, Cheaper!(TM) and Cato's point is that it's not. "

But that's exactly my point! The data you need to demonstrate the failure of the Massachusetts program is the comparison of public and private cost growth. Why omit that and include stats that are unsurprising and don't speak to the failure of the program - and it's quite clear at least on the cost front it's failed. I'm sure it was a data availability thing or something. The Urban Institute is hardly opposed to a public plan - and they were very up front about cost growth in MA in the publication I linked too.

But all this reinforces the underlying point - look closely at what's going on in the states and what they get right and what they get wrong before doing anything drastic.

Not just states, but also places like Singapore - which gets the same healthcare outcomes for 4.5% of GDP and more choice for consumers. Government is heavily involved, but in a smarter way than in Europe and Canada. I completely agree with you on this - go slowly. This ramming through the legislative process full-force nationalization of health care to achieve presidential political ends is...um... UNWISE.

Methinks -

That's interesting - I know nothing about Singapore (I really know very little even about the U.S. - this is not my field). Usually you hear about Europe when it comes to international comparisons - and they've made us look ridiculous by demonstrating that controlling cost growth is possible, albeit with some obvious concerns about availability of care.

Do you have any good links on Singapore's system?

Daniel,

it's not my field either, but I had a lot of health problems which started at the age of two. So, I've had a personal sampling of Soviet, Western European and American health care. Also, half my family are surgeons and physicians and epidemiologists here, in Europe, Russia and with the WHO. Since they're all obsessed with their professions, I have no choice but to receive a lot of information about the medical field. Don't worry though, I get them back with heavy doses of highly technical explanations of financial markets and instruments.

I know that the left generally has a very romantic view of Europe - mostly because their sole experience with Europe is eating croissants on the Champs-Elysee and backpacking through the Alps. It all seems so much better when you're on vacation.

One cost savings in Europe is that they are not Obese. 12% of the French are obese compared to over 30% of Americans. The incidence of chronic, expensive and life-shortening diseases is very high among the obese. This cannot be overstated. They choose a better lifestyle and lifestyle has a very profound effect on your health - an effect that, at some point, cannot be offset with additional medical attention.

Beyond that, Europe doesn't trounce us in cost because it's an apples to oranges comparison. If you've had the unfortunate experience of needing complicated procedures in both places, you will know instantly that the availability of more advanced (and more expensive) medical technology and pharmaceuticals is very limited as compared to the U.S. The quality of care is also worse.

According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, health care spending accounted for 10.9% of GDP in Switzerland, 10.7% in Germany,

# Health care spending accounted for 10.9 percent of the GDP in Switzerland, 10.7 9.7% in Canada and 9.5% in France.

The U.S. spent 15% for the same time period.

But, we also get a lot of optional procedures and are eager to provide our loved ones with the latest medical technology has to offer. Expensive infertility treatments are covered by insurance in the U.S. but are not covered at all in European countries. Same for medication like Viagra (although, I expect France does cover it - love is important and smoking is hell on the vascular system). If I lose a leg, I'm getting the newest, most expensive prosthetic there available and will allow me to continue running - and I'm willing to pay to get it. In France, the wooden stump whittled by a sixth generation stump craftsman on the Normandy coast is all that's available to me. Are we getting what we pay for? I think so. We get so much more.

According to the CBO, about half of the increase in healthcare spending in the U.S. over the past few decades is associated with changes in medical care made possible by advances in medical technology.

The real problem is that Americans see the new technology and want it, but don't want to pay for it and assume that Europeans are getting it "for free". Most of it, the Europeans are not getting at all or in very limited amounts.

Then, there are the claims of "excessive growth" in America's healthcare costs. According to a study conducted by Andrew Biggs, if "excessive growth" is defined as the growth rate the growth rate of GDP, America's growth excessive growth since 1990 is not that different from the 23 OECD countries. 1.62% for the OECD vs. 1.66% for the U.S. In fact, the U.S. excessive growth rate ranks 9th of the 23.

Is Europe better, faster, cheaper? Hardly.

Wow, that was some crack editing I did in the above post. moving on...

Links for information about Singapore's health system:

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/01/singapores_heal.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Singapore

http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/07/singapores-health-care-system/

That should give you a good start.

Methinks,

It will help if you can create tiny urls out of the long ones. You can do it at this website.

http://www.tiny.cc/

When Obama talks about cutting costs, he means reducing spending, (or at least slowing the rate at which spending increases). However, cutting spending is not the same as cutting costs, but often the opposite. For example, the UK's NHS can cut spending by increasing waiting times; the cost is merely paid in a way that escapes the notice of accountants.

If this healthcare deform becomes policy, then expect government attempts to control and cut spending to increase the real cost of healthcare in the US.

Wow, Methinks, good posts.

Europeans pay for their healthcare systems with pain and suffering. Since this cannot be measured, it cannot be turned into a target, and bureacrats learned that it is the best way to hide the true cost of socialised healthcare. If the accountant can't see it, then it doesn't exist.

Thanks, guys. Sorry about the bad editing.

Look what I found posted on a message board just now:

23 July 2009

Editor, The New York Times

620 Eighth Avenue


New York, NY 10018

To the Editor:

If an armed man breaks into your house, confiscates money from your wallet,

insists that he and his goons are blessed with a grand vision of how you and


your family should be provided with health care, and commands you to do as


he orders, would you believe his promise to keep armed intruders "out of


health care decisions"? ("Text: Obama's Remarks on Health Care," July 22).

Of course not.

So why isn't the entire country furious at being insulted by Pres. Obama's

patently absurd claim that his efforts to give government a greater role in


paying for health care will "keep government out of health care decisions"?

Sincerely,

Donald J. Boudreaux


Chairman, Department of Economics


George Mason University


Fairfax, VA 22030

Methink's Links for information about Singapore's health system:

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

Just look at what a problem Medicare has been for this country. Obama even stated that this program is the reason why we have such a huge deficit. Why would we welcome another government program?

Market-based policies are more cost effective for the government - and therefore the taxpayers- than publicly funded healthcare. According to the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, January 2005, if every uninsured individual was covered by a government program such as Medicaid, the cost to the federal and state governments is approximately $2000 each. If, however, low-income and modest-income Americans could purchase their own health insurance by utilizing a $1000 tax credit, the federal government would save 50% of that money. With over 45 million uninsured Americans, that savings would be substantial indeed.

Market-based insurance would not only be more affordable health coverage, it would also provide consumers with more choice. Because savings come from a tax credit, the option to choose insurance companies, policies and doctors is left to the person who purchases the insurance, not a group of politicians. Health insurance needs vary widely from one individual to the next and having the ability to choose the options that work best for an individual's circumstances is fundamental to quality health care.

Several different market-based solutions could help low and modest-income individuals and families find affordable health coverage. Tax credits, tax deductions, health savings accounts and high-risk pools are all market-based options to make affordable medical insurance a reality for uninsured people who are working, but cannot afford medical insurance.

Tax credits allow people to keep more of their income on a monthly basis in their pay so the can purchase coverage. Because tax credits enable people to make their own choices of providers, plans and doctors, they are considered to be a preferred market-based solution for affordable health coverage. Tax credits enable working people to pay for their own health insurance without having to fall back on Medicare or other government health programs. Because a tax credit would cost only half the amount of Medicare per individual, the burden on all taxpayers is also reduced, saving everyone money.

It's obvious that Romney is an inferior technocrat. The ultimate answer to successful healthcare reform is intelligent application of workable solutions which DON'T increase costs - which actually decreasse costs and increase access. Romney's failure is that his plan has increased healthcare costs, which, as anyone can see, is counter to reform aimed at reducing costs. Obama merely has to decrease costs and increase access, which is the correct way to reform healthcare.

Wow!!!

So when I show something like this it is not useful data.

OR THIS!.

MAYBE THIS!

ALL irrelevant?

But Don says that a Cato Guy says that Massachusetts Health Care spending is out of control. I mean the Cato Guy said it right? Must be true. Of course he didn't reference his source but you all like spoon feedings of easily digested mush that happens to conform with your pleasant world views and doesn't upset your tummy too much.

Cato guy says, "In reality, since the program became law, insurance premiums have been increasing by 10 to 12 percent per year, nearly double the national average. On average, health insurance costs $16,897 a year for a family of four in Massachusetts, compared to $12,700 nationally. Meanwhile, total health-care spending in the state has increased by 28 percent."

So lets dice that up a bit.

First he says, ..."since the program became law,..."

Well how long ago was that?

How about July 1 2007. WOW ... HOLY CRAP >>> 2 full years and the problems not solved!!!!!

Next Cat Guy says...." insurance premiums have been increasing by 10 to 12 percent per year, nearly double the national average..."

But what Cato Guy doesn't tell you ... maybe because he knows his audience likes to not check things out and wants to be spoon fed.... what he doesn't tell you is that Massachusetts had the highest and fastest growing insurance premiums in the world BEFORE THE FRICKING PUBLIC plan was passed into law.

Come on people this needs serious discussion about things and how they relate to the real world. Where people live and die.

methinks,

In general, I do not appreciate comments which exceed 200 words. Your Jul 24, 2009 4:19:09 PM post,though, was excellent. Well worth the read.

Thanks.

muigeo posted some statistics on health care outcomes that he thinks are a slam dunk in favor of government run health care. He doesn't consider the possibility that these statistics are badly flawed.

From the Wikipedia article on infant mortality :

"The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless.[5] And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates."

Expenditure for health care in Alberta, Canada consume 40% of our provincial budget and we are trying to figure out how to keep it from growing.

I apologize in advance for the length of this, but it came to me in the form of an e-mail.

-------------------------

No doubt you are aware of the push by Obama to pass a health care bill


> quickly, before Congress or anyone else can read it. A friend just


> sent me these excerpts from the house bill:


>


> Pg 22 of the HC Bill mandates the Government will audit books of all


> employers that self insure. Can you imagine what that will do to small


> businesses? Every one will abandon "self insurance" and go on


> Government insurance. So when Obama says that there will still be


> private health care, it's simply a lie: this mandate will force


> employers to abandon their private plans.


>


> Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - a Government committee (good luck with


> that!) will decide what treatments/benefits a person may receive.


>


> Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill - YOUR HEALTHCARE WILL BE RATIONED!


> (We all knew this, because health care is rationed in Canada and


> Britain, but Obama kept saying it would not be).


>


> Pg 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC


> Benefits for you. You will have no choice!


>


> PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill - HC will be provided to ALL non US


> citizens, illegal or otherwise.


>


> Pg 58 HC Bill - Government will have real-time access to individual's


> finances and a National ID Healthcard will be issued!


>


> Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Government will have direct access to your


> bank accts for election funds transfer


>


> PG 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their


> families in Unions & community organizations (read: ACORN).


>


> Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Government will create an20HC Exchange to bring


> private HC plans under Government control.


>


> PG 84 Sec 203 HC bill - Government mandates ALL benefit packages for


> private HC plans in the Exchange.


>


> PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specifics of Benefit Levels for Plans = The


> Government will ration your Healthcare!


>


> PG 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill - Government mandates linguistic appropriate


> services. Example - Translation for illegal aliens.


>


> Pg 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Government will use groups, i.e. ACORN &


> Americorps, to sign up individuals for Government HC plan.


>


> PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specifics of Benefit Levels for Plans. AARP


> members


> - your Health care WILL be rationed.


>


> -PG 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill - Medicaid Eligible Individuals will be


> automatically enrolled in Medicaid. No choice.


>


> pg 124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue Government on price fixing.


> No "judicial review" against Government Monopoly.


>


> pg 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill - Doctors/ AMA - The Government will tell


> YOU what you can earn.


>


> Pg 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into public


> option plan. NO CHOICE.


>


> Pg 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay for HC for part time employees


> AND their families.


>


> Pg 149 Lines 16-24 ANY Employer with payroll $400k & above who does


> not provide public option pays 8% tax on all payroll.


>


> pg 150 Lines 9-13 Businesses wit h payroll between $251k & $400k who


> don't provide public option pay 2-6% tax on all payroll.


>


> Pg 167 Lines 18-23 ANY individual who doesn't have acceptable HC


> according to Government will be taxed 2.5% of income.


>


> Pg 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from


> individual taxes. (Americans will pay.)


>


> Pg 195 HC Bill -officers & employees of HC Admin (the GOVERNMENT) will


> have access to ALL Americans' finances and personal records.


>


> PG 203 Line 14-15 HC - "The tax imposed under this section shall not


> be treated as tax" Yes, it says that.


>


> Pg 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill Government will reduce physician services


> for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected.


>


> Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill - Doctors - doesn't matter what specialty -


> will all be paid the same.


>


> PG 253 Line 10-18 Government sets value of Doctor's time, professional


> judgment, etc. Literally, value of humans.


>


> PG 265 Sec 1131 Government mandates & controls productivity for


> private HC industries.


>


> PG 268 Sec 1141 Federal Government regulates rental & purchase of


> power driven wheelchairs.


>


> PG 272 SEC. 1145. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer


> patients


> - welcome to rationing!


>


> Page 280 Sec 1151 The Government will penalize hospitals for what


> Government deems preventable readmissions.


>


> Pg 298 Lines 9-11 Doctors who treat a patient during initial admission


> that results in a readmission - Government will penalize you.


>


> Pg 317 L 13-20 PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Government tells


> Doctors what/how much they can own.


>


> Pg 317-318 lines 21-25,1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion - Government will


> mandate hospitals cannot expand.


>


> pg 321 2-13 Hospitals have opportunity to apply for exception BUT


> community input required. Can u say ACORN?!


>


> Pg335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339 - Government mandates establishment of


> outcome-based measures which of course forces health care rationing.


>


> Pg 341 Lines 3-9 Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Adv


> Plans, HMOs, etc., forcing people into Government plan.


>


> Pg 354 Sec 1177 - Government will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs


> people!


>


> Pg 379 Sec 1191 Government creates more bureaucracy - Telehealth


> Advisory Committee. HC by phone.


>


> PG 425 Lines 4-12 Government mandates Advance Care Planning Consultations.


> Think Senior Citizens end of life prodding.


>


> Pg 425 Lines 17-19 Government will instruct & consult regarding living


> wills, durable powers of attorney. Mandatory!


>


> PG 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Government provides approved list of


> end of life resources, guiding you in how to die.


>


> PG 427 Lines 15-24 Government mandates program for orders for end of life.


> The Government has a say in how your life ends.


>


> Pg 429 Lines 1-9 An "advanced care planning consultant" will be used


> frequently as patients' health deteriorates.


>


> PG 429 Lines 10-12 "advanced care consultation" may include an ORDER


> for end of life plans. AN ORDER from the Government to end a life!


>


> Pg 429 Lines 13-25 - The Government will specify which Doctors can


> write an end of life order.


>


> PG 430 Lines 11-15 The Government will decide what level of treatment


> you will have at end of life.


>


> Pg 469 - Community Based Home Medical Services/Non profit orgs. (ACORN


> Medical Services here?)


>


> Page 472 Lines 14-17 PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATION. 1


> monthly payment to a community-based organization. (Like ACORN?)


>


> PG 489 Sec 1308 The Government will cover Marriage & Family therapy.


> Which means they will insert Government into our marriages.


>


> Pg 494-498 Government will cover Mental Health Services including


> defining, creating, rationing those services. You'd better speak up


> now before you are on the "advanced care consultation" list.


>


> Whatever you think about this bill, I hope you will contact your


> senators and representatives during the August recess to let them


> know.


>


> Blessings,

Late to the party, but I wanted to cross link this.

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2009/06/even-obesity-paradoxes-cant-excuse.html

It turns out that you are a little incorrect here Methinks "One cost savings in Europe is that they are not Obese. 12% of the French are obese compared to over 30% of Americans. The incidence of chronic, expensive and life-shortening diseases is very high among the obese. This cannot be overstated." Obesity seems to be more of a correlation to early death than a cause, as those who are old tend to be obese, and being old is a major cause of death.

Eric,

Early death is not a cause of increased health care spending. In fact, early death is a savings and this is relevant since I was addressing health care spending.

Obesity is expensive because it increases the probability of cardio-vascular disease and diabetes and some cancers. Those diseases, in turn are life shortening - more for some populations than others.

You have to also consider genetics. For example, it appears that an American diet is much worse for the Okinawans than it is for Americans of European descent. Hispanics and blacks have a higher predisposition to heart disease and diabetes than other gene pools and we have more of both in the United States than in Canada. They also tend to have shorter life-spans than Americans of European descent. We can't necessarily conclude that the Canadian findings applies to the American population. Although, I am against pouring money down anti-obesity campaign sink-holes.

It's possible that Obesity doesn't doesn't shorten lief in any way that would be statistically significant, but I don't think that the additional spending on associated health issues can be disputed.

/sarcasm

Having read the article I can confidently say that Krugman is an idiot.

But that's OK, what he lacks by way of a clue he more than makes up for with arrogance.

Methinks, very well said. My brother-in-law almost died waiting in a German hospital for what is routine care in the US. The only thing that saved him was his company getting him into a private hospital.

Re: "The data you need to demonstrate the failure of the Massachusetts program is the comparison of public and private cost growth."

Given the distortion of medical costs statewide resulting from Romney-Care, I think the comparison would be less valuable than you suggest. The claims were that it would reduce costs. It obviously has not. The only surprising thing is that anybody fell for the BS in the first place.

Gosh - data. Wonder why those never appear in Krugman's columns.

Very good post and great comments (except for the last few).