4 ms·

After a government project just fails spectacularly...the response is yet more spending of taxpayer money? Why not just free the health insurance market to oper

by temphn 14y ago

After a government project just fails spectacularly...the response is yet more spending of taxpayer money? Why not just free the health insurance market to operate like the auto insurance market, such that individuals can buy on their own without having to go through their employers, and such that insurers must face competition across state lines?

benmathes 14y ago
There are tax breaks to providing health insurance through your employer, so companies are incentivized to compensate you with health insurance instead of more cash.
- Drbble 14y ago
  That's trivial to fix by restructuring the tax deduction to make it employee-side
  - benmathes 14y ago
    Coming up with a better way is trivial, yes, but getting it past the entrenched interests of one of the largest sectors of the economy (Healthcare) is ridiculously hard.
- temphn 14y ago
  Yes, I know this. The solution is to either repeal those tax breaks or provide the same ones to individuals, to put all purchasers on the same playing field. Can't possible be more dislocating than the health care reform bill itself.
bluedanieru 14y ago
So your response to a dysfunctional government that can't even implement something as basic as health care is to say "screw it" and cut everyone loose? Health care is a public good, it belongs in the public domain. Quit electing stupid partisan assholes to run your government and you might get some policy that isn't designed for the sole purpose of benefiting special interests.
- ajg1977 14y ago
  Medicare is pretty good proof that the government can infact do a decent job of health care. At least compared to private insurance.
- cjy 14y ago
  Health care is not a public good (in the economic sense of the word). To be a public good it has to be non-rival and non-excludable. It is definitely rival (the surgeon can't operate on two people at once). And, it is only non-excudable to the extent that society won't let people die just because they aren't able to pay. There are plenty of reasons to think health care will not be efficiently produced by the market (adverse selection in health insurance is one). But, the reason the government will do such a bad job isn't that we have "stupid partisan assholes". It's that the incentives for government bureaucratic are all screwed up (see public choice theory). The problem is deeper than politics.
  - ajross 14y ago
    The first paragraph seems weird. Does the fact that bluedanieru used a term in a sense other than economism jargon change the point? It seemed to have a clear meaning to me; I can't even tell if you disagree with it. The second has a straightforward answer: universal health care has been implemented successfully in basically every industrial democracy (including the USA, for people over 65). I'd like one of those, please. The idea that there are first-principles reasons why this "can't work" when it so clearly can and does is just ridiculous. But I see it again and again. It's like libertarians have never been to Canada (or don't have grandparents).
    - cjy 14y ago
      I was just responding to his "it's a public good so it should be provided by the government". In economics, public goods are automatic things that should be done by the government because the market would fail miserably. I wasn't using jargon for jargon's sake. Your advocacy for universal health seems to have two parts: 1. It would be nice for someone else to pay for my health care. 2. Universal health care in other countries is better than what we have in the U.S. My responses would be: 1. Everyone would like this, but it doesn't make us any better off in aggregate. (If you want to redistribute income, it doesn't have to be done via healthcare). 2. Is debatable. There are trade-offs. Look at wait times in Canada. What about innovation over time. Maybe other countries are free riding off of our innovation. Just because costs aren't as visible don't mean they don't exist. I'm not against all government intervention into healthcare. But, we should understand why the market is failing and how the government is correcting those failures. That is the only way to make good choices about the trade-offs involved. Otherwise, we are just setting ourselves up for failure in the long run.

by temphn 14y ago

benmathes 14y ago

There are tax breaks to providing health insurance through your employer, so companies are incentivized to compensate you with health insurance instead of more cash.

Drbble 14y ago
That's trivial to fix by restructuring the tax deduction to make it employee-side
- benmathes 14y ago
  Coming up with a better way is trivial, yes, but getting it past the entrenched interests of one of the largest sectors of the economy (Healthcare) is ridiculously hard.
temphn 14y ago
Yes, I know this. The solution is to either repeal those tax breaks or provide the same ones to individuals, to put all purchasers on the same playing field. Can't possible be more dislocating than the health care reform bill itself.

bluedanieru 14y ago

So your response to a dysfunctional government that can't even implement something as basic as health care is to say "screw it" and cut everyone loose? Health care is a public good, it belongs in the public domain. Quit electing stupid partisan assholes to run your government and you might get some policy that isn't designed for the sole purpose of benefiting special interests.

ajg1977 14y ago
Medicare is pretty good proof that the government can infact do a decent job of health care. At least compared to private insurance.
cjy 14y ago
Health care is not a public good (in the economic sense of the word). To be a public good it has to be non-rival and non-excludable. It is definitely rival (the surgeon can't operate on two people at once). And, it is only non-excudable to the extent that society won't let people die just because they aren't able to pay. There are plenty of reasons to think health care will not be efficiently produced by the market (adverse selection in health insurance is one). But, the reason the government will do such a bad job isn't that we have "stupid partisan assholes". It's that the incentives for government bureaucratic are all screwed up (see public choice theory). The problem is deeper than politics.
- ajross 14y ago
  The first paragraph seems weird. Does the fact that bluedanieru used a term in a sense other than economism jargon change the point? It seemed to have a clear meaning to me; I can't even tell if you disagree with it. The second has a straightforward answer: universal health care has been implemented successfully in basically every industrial democracy (including the USA, for people over 65). I'd like one of those, please. The idea that there are first-principles reasons why this "can't work" when it so clearly can and does is just ridiculous. But I see it again and again. It's like libertarians have never been to Canada (or don't have grandparents).
  - cjy 14y ago
    I was just responding to his "it's a public good so it should be provided by the government". In economics, public goods are automatic things that should be done by the government because the market would fail miserably. I wasn't using jargon for jargon's sake. Your advocacy for universal health seems to have two parts: 1. It would be nice for someone else to pay for my health care. 2. Universal health care in other countries is better than what we have in the U.S. My responses would be: 1. Everyone would like this, but it doesn't make us any better off in aggregate. (If you want to redistribute income, it doesn't have to be done via healthcare). 2. Is debatable. There are trade-offs. Look at wait times in Canada. What about innovation over time. Maybe other countries are free riding off of our innovation. Just because costs aren't as visible don't mean they don't exist. I'm not against all government intervention into healthcare. But, we should understand why the market is failing and how the government is correcting those failures. That is the only way to make good choices about the trade-offs involved. Otherwise, we are just setting ourselves up for failure in the long run.