Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Having dumped on Mickey Kaus, I have to give him props for:

this (you have to scroll, I can't find a permalink):

Funny, I would think health care reform would be judged effective if, say ... all Americans, however rich or poor, can get the health care they need, including the latest advances in life-saving and life-enhancing treatments. If reform accomplishes that, but the health care sector winds up as 20 percent of GDP, will it really be a failure? Why? As long as it's paid for who is Al Hunt to tell Americans how much of their GDP they should spend keeping themselves alive?


I think that is about right.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

That is contingent upon the reason that health care goes to 20%. If it goes to 20% because citizens are getting top notch service that dramatically extends their lives, this is a good thing. If it goes to 20% simply because lack of competition is creating inefficient business models, and monopoly prices, maybe not so good.

Regulation is the alternative to competition, but as financial industry regulation showed, regulations written by lobby groups don't work too well. Lobby groups tend to write regulations that create a dysfunctional business models. This is so because lobby groups represent narrow special interests. Regulations thus wind up being a chaotic potpourri of conflicting goals, rather than a coordinated plan.

Since the US spends twice as much per capita, but has a lower average life expectency... Well, draw your own conclusions.

Business Directory said...

Hi Green
You have great work in your blog. Please keep posting

ebook readers said...

Because of your title was thinking something else and the post is related to health. OMG you made me fool by playing with words..

Richard K. Green said...

OK, ebook, I'll bite. What did you think it was about?

willie green said...

Not to brag, but please note my blog entry of 12/25/2009 at The Milwaukee Diarist. I think I got this one right.