Here’s a letter that I sent yesterday to the Florida Times-Union / Jacksonville.com:
The only thing worse than the satire in Joseph Steinman’s criticism of capitalism is Mr. Steinman’s command of the facts (“Private enterprise: Far from a perfect system,” Nov. 16).
For example, it’s untrue that health-care in the U.S. is supplied by “a mostly unencumbered private sector.” Medicare, now with an annual budget of $523.6 billion, accounts for nearly one in every four dollars spent on health-care in America. Other interventions include regulations that restrict consumers’ ability to shop for health-care insurance across state lines; legislatively imposed requirements specifying which conditions insurers must cover; licensing requirements for physicians, dentists, and nurses – requirements that artificially reduce the supply of these health-care providers; and the necessity of securing F.D.A. approval for all new drugs and medical devices.
Whether or not one approves of these interventions, it’s impossible to legitimately deny that they exist, that they significantly affect Americans’ access to health-care, and that they render America’s health-care market far from “unencumbered.”
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 75 comments }
Hear, hear.
Don’t forget the dependence upon employer provided insurance thanks to the tax code, and the mess created by the third party payer system.
In addition the language has changed. When you walk into a clinic for the first time, a long time ago they quit asking you “How are you going to pay?”, and now ask, “What insurance do you have?”
The language change merely reflects the cultural change.
I personally do not think it is good for the individual to drift away from self responsibility. I personally don’t think it is good for the nation as a whole to have created a system, to have allowed a system to be created, whereby clients (read patients) no longer feel obligated to review costs, charges, and get the best deal they can from their healthcare provider.
Sure it is not unencumbered but the idea… the preposterous idea that only if it were things would be much better or even more efficient has even less basis in fact.
I think the Libertarian position has so much too offer along the lines of what might be good regulation, on the need to not micromanage or over-regulate and on things like how policy might lead to unintended consequences. Instead its proponents consistently chooses to go into the radical unfounded black and white position of less or no regulation always being better.
On what basis! On what basis? Do you really have any idea of what the consequences of your positions put into place in the real world might be. Do you ever consider or even care that YOUR policies could possible lead to millions of deaths, pain and suffering? Poor people don’t get care in your world. They just suffer and die. And my guess is many middle ( assuming your world would even allow for one) would also be held hostage to their health care bills.
Maybe somehow I am wrong and you are right. But again on what basis can I judge your claim. On what basis do you make it.
I really wish there were a button you could push to allow you to see the “ghosts of Christmas’s future” of the world you would “design”. But of course you wouldn’t design it… like in the Lord of the Flies it would just emerge.
Lord of the flies was anarchy, dope.
Children living in anarchy. And it was, er…. fictitious.
Yeah, he keeps pounding the Lord of the Flies drum as if Golding intended it to be a cautionary tale against “too much” liberty.
On what basis! On what basis? Do you really have any idea of what the consequences of your positions put into place in the real world might be. Do you ever consider or even care that YOUR policies could possible lead to millions of deaths, pain and suffering? Poor people don’t get care in your world. They just suffer and die. And my guess is many middle ( assuming your world would even allow for one) would also be held hostage to their health care bills.Oh my, if muirdog repeats something often enough it MUST be truth! Ever thought of people being economically hostage to socialism, dumbass!
“Poor people don’t get care in your world. They just suffer and die. And my guess is many middle (assuming your world would even allow for one) would also be held hostage to their health care bills.”
Muirgeo: As much as I try to dislike you I simply can’t bring myself to do it. There’s something intrinsically likable about you. I suppose it stems from your obvious compassion for your fellow humans. You mean so well! You really want the best for everyone. You harbor no ill will toward anyone. What’s not to like about that?
So it baffles me that you have so much distrust in in the rest of us. If we lived in an anarcho-libertarian society (my idea of heaven on Earth) why would poor people suffer? Are you the only compassionate person you know? Would no one contribute voluntarily to the sustenance of the poor? Would charity dissolve into thin air? Are your fellow men, about whom you have such compassion, so corrupt that they would watch as others around them suffered and died? Would Christianity disappear in my utopia? Is that what you believe.
For someone with so much empathy for others you also have an innate distrust – bordering on hatred, it seems – for the very people you profess to care about. This is a huge disconnect, a chasm so wide that (I confess) sometimes it makes me worry about your health.
Nevertheless, keep punching, Brother. Occasionally you make a remark that makes it appear that things are slowly sinking in.
But he doesn’t have compassion for his fellow humans.
He pretends to, or course, but he really enjoys his trips away from the rest of humanity, despite the huge carbon footprint he leaves.
Perhaps you can tell what a person is really like by what he assumes about others.
I assume most people are pretty decent, at least that’s been my experience.
He assumes libertarians don’t care about others, unlike his own self identification, but he’s one of those who view humans like so many cattle to be managed by “good government”, and not as capable, responsible, moral beings.
You assume most people are decent because you live in what used to be a pretty free country where people enjoyed a fairly high level of economic freedom.
All that magnificent government turned my people into animals who would literally send their family members to prison for a larger one room apartment or an extra ration from the government. YASAFI and his ilk will recreate that joy here.
“I think the”
No you don’t my little teacup Chihuahua, there is no evidence over the last 2.5 years that you think.
Maybe somehow I am wrong and you are right. – Yasafi Muirduck
Every now and then, you get something correct.
Do you ever consider or even care that YOUR policies could possible lead to millions of deaths, pain and suffering? Poor people don’t get care in your world.
Unlike the world of political states that have never brought harm to any human being!
YASAFI!
Wow! To claim that the market here is “unencumbered,” one must be either wholly ignorant of the subject, or intentionally lying. I see no third option.
Muirgeo says: “Do you really have any idea of what the consequences of your positions put into place in the real world might be.”
Yes, if I could purchase health insurance across state lines I can guarantee that I would immediately have access to similar coverage for a lower premium.
Also worth noting that if not for capitalism, we would all be poor. The average westerner today enjoys a standard of living that only the elites of past generations could afford.
You know that doesn’t matter. I’m sure there are tons of Statists out there that think we should go back to our agrarian ways and be “one” with nature.
Pol Pot was big on that idea, and it worked out great.
If even one person fails in capitalism, then it’s the fault of capitalism! Onward to socialism, comrades where we can all fail equally well!
But not because of free market capitalism… because of REGULATED capitalism.
You’re right. Imagine how much richer we would be today if we had a free market. Thanks, muirgeo.
Oh we have regulated capitalism, don’t we murgoo? That’s what you said. And then you said it was responsible for the best economy in the world “until recently”, remember? It was all going perfectly “until recently”!!!
HAHAHAHAA!
What a maroon!
Don’t feed into his ego. The more you respond or quote him, the more asinine his responses are going to be. Creating a vicious feedback loop that just turns these comment boards into crap.
Do Not Feed The Trolls!
Excellent advice; advice I need to heed.
Oh BS. I am arguing one side of philosophic debate that has been debated by great minds on both sides since ancient Greece. You simply don’t care to hear of competing ideas that challenge your narrow minded world view.
I can’t even imagine blogging on a board were everyone simply agreed and conformed. Unlike you I don’t simply want my positions re-enforced I want them challenged.
Hey Liargo,
A few years ago, someone asked you on this blog, 10 economic beliefs that you held before coming here ( several years ago), that were challenged by those who contribute to this blog – to such an extend that you made a 180 degree turn. We are still waiting to hear about those positions. Liar, go ahead, dazzle us.
Oh, we’ve set the bar lower than that. He’s been asked to present a coherent argument for his random beliefs and he’s not been able to clear that ground level bar even once.
LoL read my post again…Do not feed into him. He can say all he wants about me, call me whatever, think as low as he wants of me…all the while comparing himself to the great minds of ancient Greece. Can anyone say Egomaniac? Simply ignore him.
Tell me about it. A hop across the border to the nearest neighboring state would result in my health insurance premiums dropping to one quarter of what I currently pay, thanks to guaranteed issue and other stupid laws.
Wow one forth of your current premium!!! I might have missed it but I think you forgot to cite documentation or evidence that this would be the case.
Go forth to claim your forth as I froth! Now prove to me that the froth is only one forth!!
When you can win on the facts make it about spelling and grammar.
Ok, a quarter is an exaggeration. I should have said half.
As far as documentation goes, that would require my telling you some personal information that is none of your stinking business.
Try looking up what states have guaranteed issue, which ones do not, and compare similar policies. Then take a look at the median household income in those states. You’ll find that in one of those states with guaranteed issue the average cost for a family health insurance plan is three quarters of the median income.
All thanks to government intervention.
“Certificate of need” laws (CON) in 36 states restrict the supply of hospitals and medical clinics. Incredibly, the National Conference of State Legislatures has informed its members that:
“The basic assumption underlying CON regulation is that excess capacity (in the form of facility overbuilding) directly results in health care price inflation.”
“Advocates of CON programs say that health care cannot be considered as a “typical” economic product. They argue that many “market forces” do not obey the same rules for health care services as they do for other products.”
“Excess capacity (in the form of facility overbuilding) directly results in health care price inflation.”
I don’t even know what to say to that. Maybe it’s true in the narrow sense – if you artificially limit the number of doctors and insist that the same number of patients pay for the extra floorspace, then yes, you’d wind up with doctors in more spacious (and pricey) surroundings. Market interference begets market interference.
On a related note, does anyone think it’s coincidence that the feds are now downplaying the importance of mammograms with forthcoming nationwide government subsidized insurance? Welcome to your rationed healthcare.
John Dewey,
Thanks for bringing up the certificates of need. As far as I’m aware, they are a result of the hospital lobby and the point is to restrict competition in surgical centers to force business back into hospitals. It’s appalling.
Market interference begat more market interference:
“Congress passed and President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the 1966 comprehensive Health Planning and Services Act (P.L. 89-749), which asked states to establish planning processes that would rationally allocate federally-granted health-related funding”
“Section 1122 of the 1972 Social Security Act … allowed the federal government to deny states reimbursement for depreciation, interest, and other costs for Hill-Burton or Medicare investment projects if the effort was not approved by a state health planning agency”
health-care in the U.S. is supplied by “a mostly unencumbered private sector.”
That sounds like the kind of fatuous comment George would make.
“Wooo! Look who knows so much, huh? Well it just so happens that your friend here is only ‘mostly’ dead.”
Name that movie.
C’mon, that’s easy. The lines were uttered by Billy Crystal.
Oh yeah, “The Princess Bride”
Just trying to inject a little more humor into muir’s comments… if that’s possible…
He makes me think of another movie where the lead said “Stupid is as stupid does”.
Sorry, Godwin time.Some people make assertions about “free markets” and the wealthy running the world in such case, as though The Nazis took over Germany from their positions of great wealth.Same for many tyrants, Mao, Lenin, etc.
Just because they’re nationalists and socialists doesn’t mean they’re national socialists. Don’t start name-calling now.
That’s why we import most of our doctors and nurses now.
Muirego, you talkin about North Korea? Give us some facts man, not propaganda…..All people want is to eliminate pre-existing conditions and make everyone pay premiums. Not 2,000 words of political propaganda for commissars.
I mean 2,000 pages….
Muirego, you have no idea what you are talking about. You know, some clinics in the socialist paradise of the old Soviet Union didn’t even have thread for stitches. I suggest you talk to some eastern Europeans about that….
Um….for the Eastern Europeans or people in general, talking to Muirdiot is the intellectual equivalent of bashing their heads against a brick wall studded with metal spikes.
Why because Eastern Europeans all want to run their countries libertarian style?
Thank you, Muirdiot, for providing an example.
Many E. European countries are considered the most liberalizing countries in all of Europe. They’re also the fastest growing economies in Europe.
See: Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, etc…
No, you have no idea what I am talking about. Like yeah I’m really pitching for a return of Soviet style government or incorporating the successes of North Korea into our own.
I think you are actually being serious but I can’t tell. Either way you are either avoiding the debate or being intellectually dishonest.
I suspect you’re one of those who can’t suffer nuance. Everything is black or white for you. There is either free market capitalism or communism in your mind regardless of the fact that the real world is everything in between.
Like yeah I’m really pitching for a return of Soviet style government or incorporating the successes of North Korea into our own.
mmmmmm……
My own response:
Re: Private enterprise: Far from a perfect system – Nov 16
Mr. Steinman’s critique of the free market and his argument for increased government intervention is hardly supported by his examples of bureaucratic efficiency. Medicare – bleeding red ink and soon to be bankrupt; Social security – a Ponzi scheme also sliding fast into bankruptcy; and USPS – in a word, “broke.” But somehow Mr. Steinman finds no fault with bankrupt bureaucracies kept on life-support through the forced confiscation of earnings of taxpaying Americans. It’s appears that only “free-market” bankruptcies are intolerable.
Yes, in a free market some companies will falter and fail. That’s how resources are re-directed from poor utilization to more productive management. But, until we climbed in bed with GM, no citizen was forced to invest in or purchase products from these failing companies. One cannot say the same about the government blunders mentioned above.
People are told that we live in a free market economy. If we have a free market economy and the status quo fails. Therefore we have a market failure and we need government regulation. But government intervention is often the status quo more than the lack there of.
I would suspect that Europe has not had the sort of widespread housing collapse because they don’t have the a European eqivellent of the fannie mae FHA CRA etc.. They have the free market we have a housing policy that goal is to increase demand for housing through government intervention.
Actually, many other Western countries did have programs subsidizing housing in one way or another. Europe didn’t collapse because the US government bailed out AIG. European banks are, right now, highly over-exposed to a lot of mortgage credit risk that’s being kept from coming to roost by desperate actions of European and other governments.
And guys, let’s look at ourselves for a moment. Muirgeo makes a post that contains definite assertions and makes definite arguments. These are things that can be responded to in a productive way that leaves us all more knowledgeable for participating in the discussion. However, that’s not what you’re doing. You’re all engaging in the ‘gang’ behavior that other political groups use to intimidate and drive out dissent. Are libertarians really going to be known as just another group looking for power? I’ll step up to the plate on this one, since everybody else seems happy to just swing their bats at muir from the dugout.
“On what basis! On what basis?”
The basis of sound understanding of economics. Raising regulatory compliance costs, setting artificial limits on supply, manipulating relative prices in health care related industries, and a whole host of other policies that liberals and libertarians want to be rid of are almost all already part of an age old mythos of failed government policies. Price controls don’t work. Supply constrictions just decrease availability and raise prices. Demand supports do the same thing.
Getting rid of the existing tax ‘credit’ to group insurance policies would be an excellent return to private-payer health care, which I hope you’ll understand is a good thing for price control. Just like we’re not experiencing crisis level tire price inflation, the market, when left free to innovate and produce, is pretty good about providing us what we want within the limitations of factor availability. You see this in tires, as I mentioned, you see it in cars, in food, in everything. Capitalism works wonderfully for everything, why should we be expecting it to be different with health care?
Ending the AMA’s strange-hold on medical licensing or, even more radically, getting rid of license requires to practice medicine would be an instant supply side stimulus to health capital availability. Yes, there’d no doubt be some quacks who show up and do something very stupid that will probably result in many un-suspecting people experiencing suffering. But we’ve already got a corrective mechanism for this! Medical malpractice insurance is one of the biggest fixed costs doctors face, and that would change simply because there were many more doctors. The number of malpractice law suits would go up in time with the number of quacks and charlatans.
These and other changes that liberals/libertarians propose are almost all aimed at arresting the rise in health care costs and even reversing it. The idea is that we don’t need the government stepping in and helping the poor, we can do it ourselves (although I’ve never heard of a sane libertarian proposing getting rid of Medicaid immediately). Lower the cost of health care, free people up to experiment with a million different forms of insurance (some corporate, some communal, etc), and health care will once more be abundantly available.
“let’s look at ourselves for a moment. Muirgeo makes a post that contains definite assertions and makes definite arguments. These are things that can be responded to in a productive way that leaves us all more knowledgeable for participating in the discussion. However, that’s not what you’re doing. You’re all engaging in the ‘gang’ behavior that other political groups use to intimidate and drive out dissent. Are libertarians really going to be known as just another group looking for power? I’ll step up to the plate on this one, since everybody else seems happy to just swing their bats at muir from the dugout.”
Dude, get over yourself. Who appointed you the den mother?
“let’s look at ourselves for a moment. Muirgeo makes a post that contains definite assertions and makes definite arguments. These are things that can be responded to in a productive way that leaves us all more knowledgeable for participating in the discussion. However, that’s not what you’re doing. You’re all engaging in the ‘gang’ behavior that other political groups use to intimidate and drive out dissent. Are libertarians really going to be known as just another group looking for power? I’ll step up to the plate on this one, since everybody else seems happy to just swing their bats at muir from the dugout.”
Dude, get over yourself. Who appointed you the den mother?
Actually, many other Western countries did have programs subsidizing housing in one way or another. Europe didn’t collapse because the US government bailed out AIG. European banks are, right now, highly over-exposed to a lot of mortgage credit risk that’s being kept from coming to roost by desperate actions of European and other governments.
And guys, let’s look at ourselves for a moment. Muirgeo makes a post that contains definite assertions and makes definite arguments. These are things that can be responded to in a productive way that leaves us all more knowledgeable for participating in the discussion. However, that’s not what you’re doing. You’re all engaging in the ‘gang’ behavior that other political groups use to intimidate and drive out dissent. Are libertarians really going to be known as just another group looking for power? I’ll step up to the plate on this one, since everybody else seems happy to just swing their bats at muir from the dugout.
“On what basis! On what basis?”
The basis of sound understanding of economics. Raising regulatory compliance costs, setting artificial limits on supply, manipulating relative prices in health care related industries, and a whole host of other policies that liberals and libertarians want to be rid of are almost all already part of an age old mythos of failed government policies. Price controls don’t work. Supply constrictions just decrease availability and raise prices. Demand supports do the same thing.
Getting rid of the existing tax ‘credit’ to group insurance policies would be an excellent return to private-payer health care, which I hope you’ll understand is a good thing for price control. Just like we’re not experiencing crisis level tire price inflation, the market, when left free to innovate and produce, is pretty good about providing us what we want within the limitations of factor availability. You see this in tires, as I mentioned, you see it in cars, in food, in everything. Capitalism works wonderfully for everything, why should we be expecting it to be different with health care?
Ending the AMA’s strange-hold on medical licensing or, even more radically, getting rid of license requires to practice medicine would be an instant supply side stimulus to health capital availability. Yes, there’d no doubt be some quacks who show up and do something very stupid that will probably result in many un-suspecting people experiencing suffering. But we’ve already got a corrective mechanism for this! Medical malpractice insurance is one of the biggest fixed costs doctors face, and that would change simply because there were many more doctors. The number of malpractice law suits would go up in time with the number of quacks and charlatans.
These and other changes that liberals/libertarians propose are almost all aimed at arresting the rise in health care costs and even reversing it. The idea is that we don’t need the government stepping in and helping the poor, we can do it ourselves (although I’ve never heard of a sane libertarian proposing getting rid of Medicaid immediately). Lower the cost of health care, free people up to experiment with a million different forms of insurance (some corporate, some communal, etc), and health care will once more be abundantly available.
Look, these “facts” don’t help Mr Steinman’s children….
Forrest Gump!… but that was obvious, right?
He makes me think of another movie where one of the leads says “Yes it’s true. This man has no dick.”
Every time I bother to read a YASAFI post, I can’t help but think of a little movie called Idiocracy.
The movie was not a masterpieces, but….
I had to look that one up. Wikipedia is amazing.
Going to Google right now…
I know the movie. I assume it was by Bill, who got all the funny lines.
I saw that one in the theater. Youth is wasted on the young.
I think I saw that in the theater as well. Just didn’t recall it.
Having kids, I’ve seen The Princess Bride many more times.
Now stop, I’m debugging code.
100 little bugs in the code… 100 bugs in the code… fix a bug, compile again, 101 little bugs in the code…
sing along…
He’s a “special needs” type of person..
Good one. Can’t believe I haven’t heard it. My favorite is still BUGS = OFF.
I didn’t call you anything. You must be thinking of the replies of your libertarian friends to me.
I’m getting the impression libertarians are not very tolerant people.
You had that impression way before you started net stalking libertarians. It is amply demonstrated by the banal comments you have been spewing out on this blog for 3-4 years. BTW, Liargeo, I didn’t think you would be able to come up with two examples of you changing your mind because of your “open” mind. It is about as open as a brick.