Eating more while getting thinner

by Russ Roberts on February 9, 2010

in Health

The President is a man of principle. The WaPo reports:

Obama said he told House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) that his core goals — lowering health-care costs for businesses and individuals and expanding coverage to the uninsured — remained non-negotiable.

Maybe he should pick “core goals” that are compatible instead of ones that in direct conflict with each other.

View Comments    Share Share    Print Print    Email Email

{ 62 comments }

1 Methinks1776 February 10, 2010 at 4:19 pm

Again, I hope you're not misinterpreting me.

Oh, God forbid.

2 Seth February 10, 2010 at 4:50 pm

Russ – One more thought on this…I was listening to a great podcast from one of my favorite ecnomists this morning. He discussed trade. He explained how trade is a positive sum game rather than a zero sum game.

It seems that if we apply that positive sum game to medical care, we may just be able to lower costs and make it available to everyone (who wants it). Or am I missing something?

3 yetanotherdave February 10, 2010 at 6:55 pm

I don't think TOTUS knows he's about to be replaced!

http://baracksteleprompter.blogspot.com/

4 not an economist February 10, 2010 at 10:09 pm

Wow, what an encouraging post. Thanks for encourage open questioning.sarcasm

Professor Roberts very clearly implies the mutual exclusivity of “lowering health-care costs for businesses and individuals and expanding coverage to the uninsured.”

By the way, more things do not equal more cost when you are talking about the total cost coverage. The number of participants is not relevant when one examines the total cost of a self-funded insurance plan. By “plan” in insurance terminology, one is not referring to an individual policy; rather, one is referring to the overall group of policies bundled and offered to a particular group of employees and funded by those employees. Two self-funded plans can have the same overall cost but have differing numbers of individual policies offered, which is why one might say that an individual's choice to do reduce personal costs can also reduce the total cost of the plan and therefore reduce the cost to the business, which might share in a percentage of the overall plan cost.

5 not an economist February 10, 2010 at 10:32 pm

I really just wanted to listen (read) to an explanation of the assumption, hopefully so I can understand his position a bit better. Thanks txslr for explaining this position.

6 vidyohs February 11, 2010 at 6:26 am

Love it.

7 Nick February 11, 2010 at 4:01 pm

Isn't food highly subsidized?

8 Nick February 11, 2010 at 4:04 pm

Do you genuinely believe there are any progressives left that support the currently proposed reforms ?

9 Nick February 11, 2010 at 4:08 pm

It may not reduce costs but does it raise outcomes relative to the cost, and are the costs reasonable? A seatbelt certainly raises the cost of a car, and it reduces your odds of dying behind the wheel. Do you really complain that you'd rather buy a car without a seatbelt because its keeping the cost of the car too high?

10 Nick February 11, 2010 at 9:01 pm

Isn't food highly subsidized?

11 Nick February 11, 2010 at 9:04 pm

Do you genuinely believe there are any progressives left that support the currently proposed reforms ?

12 Nick February 11, 2010 at 9:08 pm

It may not reduce costs but does it raise outcomes relative to the cost, and are the costs reasonable? A seatbelt certainly raises the cost of a car, and it reduces your odds of dying behind the wheel. Do you really complain that you'd rather buy a car without a seatbelt because its keeping the cost of the car too high?

Comments on this entry are closed.

blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: