Fools On the Hill

by Don Boudreaux on December 3, 2009

in Health, Myths and Fallacies, Prices, Reality Is Not Optional

Here’s a letter that I sent earlier this afternoon to a reporter for CBS News:

Mr. Bob Foss, CBS Radio News
New York, NY

Dear Mr. Foss:

On today’s 1:00pm national-news radio broadcast you reported that the Senate voted to require all insurance companies “to cover mammograms and pap smears at no cost.”

The Senate can vote as much as it wants to do such a thing, but it might just as well vote to stop the earth from rotating or flies from buzzing.  To be performed, mammograms and pap smears require resources, both human and non-human.  These resources have alternative uses.  So whenever these resources are used to produce a mammogram or a pap smear, other things that these resources could have been – but aren’t – used to produce are not produced.  The value of the goods and services that are not produced is the mammogram’s or pap-smear’s cost.

And because these procedures are inevitably costly, there is an inevitable cost to insurers of covering them.

In theory, government might force A to pay for B’s mammograms and pap smears.  But it absolutely cannot eliminate these costs.

In practice – and especially if “health-care reform” makes the health-insurance industry more competitive – insurers’ cost of covering these procedures will inevitably be reflected in the premiums they charge.  Firms in competitive industries are driven out of business if they don’t cover all of their costs.

You and your colleagues in the mainstream media should stop speaking as if costs can be magically legislated away by the Fools on the Hill.  Such a change in the way you report the news would be a first step toward a more realistic assessment of the limits that constrain government’s power to create heaven on earth.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

Comments    Share Share    Print Print    Email Email

  • Andy
    Dr. Boudreaux:

    Your point here is excellent. It would be so much better if we could get reporters to speak accurately about "costs," use the term "free" correctly (i.e. never), but I fear that a statement along the lines of "at no direct charge to the patient at the time of the visit" probably won't catch on.

    I will however take issue with your use of "Fools on the Hill" comment. Its catchy and clever, and I'm sure many of us that agree with your viewpoint appreciate the humor. However, it is precisely this sort of namecalling that lowers the level of debate. I make it a point to call our Dr. Krugman in his blog when he moves away from policy and starts with right-wing/conservative/republican bashing and I feel it only fair to point out to you that calling the ruling class "fools" does nothing to elevate the level of debate nor persuade anyone from the other side of the aisle.

    I do greatly enjoy your writing and will continue to read, but please drop the snark.

    Regards,
    Andy
  • Not Sure
    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid:

    Today we vote whether to even discuss one of the greatest issues of our generation – indeed, one of the greatest issues this body has ever faced: whether this nation will finally guarantee its people the right to live free from the fear of illness and death, which can be prevented by decent health care for all.

    http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm...

    Free from the fear of illness and death, which can be prevented? That's got to be quite an impressive healthcare plan, don't you think?

    OTOH, think of the carbon footprint of millions of immortal people- I suppose the government's got work to do, still.
  • crawdad
    Since the death toll in the U.S. from medical mistakes and hospital caused infections hovers around 200,000 per year, the fear and reality of death will remain. It will probably be enhanced as more and more people flood the system to get their share of "free" healthcare. Want to stay healthy, stay away from hospitals except in dire situations. No chance of immortality on this plane of existence. It's not about healthcare, it's about control - Period.

    No, I'm not making the number up. Link:

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-secon...
  • Not Sure
    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid:

    Today we vote whether to even discuss one of the greatest issues of our generation – indeed, one of the greatest issues this body has ever faced: whether this nation will finally guarantee its people the right to live free from the fear of illness and death, which can be prevented by decent health care for all.

    http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm...

    Free from the fear of illness and death, which can be prevented? That's got to be quite an impressive healthcare plan, don't you think?

    OTOH, think of the carbon footprint of millions of immortal people- I suppose the government's got work to do, still.
  • davesmith001
    Let the gold plating begin.
  • muirgeo
    You sure they didn't just mean with no co-pay? I'm guessing that's what the Senate was voting on because the idea is to facilitate preventative measures that people might not have done if there is a "cost" out of pocket. It's still not right from a libertarian perspective but from a factual research type of perspective it will likely save lives. But yes the down side is it could cost Stephen Hemsley some money from his bonus check.
  • Methinks1776
    If you don't give enough of a crap about your own health to haul yourself into a radiologist's office for a mammogram once in a while, then the removal of the $15 co-pay isn't going to encourage you.

    If you're a real doctor (doubtful), then you should know first hand that there are countless people out there who don't get regular exams simply because they can't be bothered. Lack of compliance among patients is in the top 5 of things doctors complain about.
  • robert_o
    The solution is simple: Universal Mandatory Health Care, where everyone gets to see muirgeo for their ailments.

    Of course, muirgeo would never seek to profit from such an opportunity. He seeks merely meager compensation for his troubles: a few trips to Alaska every few weeks, a modest 5000 sqft house in a popular neighborhood, a handful of high-end cars. Nothing luxurious I'm sure.

    After all, muirgeo is there to help us all.
  • LowcountryJoe
    Can you imagine the ducktor's prescription after seeing him for a fever? Take one of these, twice a day, to reduce your carbon footprint; clearly it is linked to your abnormally high body temperture.
  • muirgeo
    Well actually my big campaign is to get everyone to lower the heat in the winter. It's strictly good medical advice that has economic benefits as well.

    When a baby has a cold I tell parents to bundle the baby and turn DOWN the heat. Hot dry air is the worst thing for the respiratory tract.

    In so doing I help them to relive the babies symptoms, shorten their duration, save the family money on the heating bill and combat global warming all at the same time.

    Yeah... I'm THAT good!
  • Methinks1776
    Why would they want to relive the babies symptoms?
  • brotio
    I help them to relive the babies symptoms

    If that baby dies, then it ceases to exhale CO2, which would mean that Yasafi's carbon footprint could be that much larger, and then he could take those carbon-spewing vacations to Exit Glacier twice a year!
  • sandre
    Kaching!!!

    David Blood, Former CEO of Goldman Sachs, is a business partner of Al Gore in their humanitarian venture to save the world. I wonder if they call their enterprise "Blood & Gore Inc.". Such champions of "unfettered" markets are the only ones benefitting from the current economy.

    Mmmmmwwwwwwaaaaaahhhhhhhh.
  • Methinks1776
    Blood and Gore sounds accurate.
  • johndewey
    Very instructive post. Thank you.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: