Comments on: Numbers matter http://keithhennessey.com/2009/10/08/numbers-matter/ Your guide to American economic policy Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:17:34 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: Keith Hennessey http://keithhennessey.com/2009/10/08/numbers-matter/comment-page-1/#comment-12658 Keith Hennessey Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:28:40 +0000 http://keithhennessey.com/2009/10/08/numbers-matter/#comment-12658 I may have been imprecise in this post, and I think you and I agree. I am for whatever level of health spending results from millions of individuals allocating their own resources to maximize their own utility, without (or with minimal) government distortion. I don't think policymakers should choose the "right" level of national health spending, including private spending. Since a few key government policies distort resource allocation in the direction of more health spending, I believe the result of eliminating or reducing these distortions would be lower private health spending. If someone chooses to spend a large share of their income on health care, I'm all for it, so long as policies aren't pushing them in that direction. And right now, they are. <div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('12658','Keith Hennessey'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('12658','Keith Hennessey','I may have been imprecise in this post, and I think you and I agree. I am for whatever level of health spending results from millions of individuals allocating their own resources to maximize their own utility, without (or with minimal) government distortion. I don't think policymakers should choose the "right" level of national health spending, including private spending. \n \nSince a few key government policies distort resource allocation in the direction of more health spending, I believe the result of eliminating or reducing these distortions would be lower private health spending. If someone chooses to spend a large share of their income on health care, I'm all for it, so long as policies aren't pushing them in that direction. And right now, they are. '); return false;">Quote</a></div> I may have been imprecise in this post, and I think you and I agree. I am for whatever level of health spending results from millions of individuals allocating their own resources to maximize their own utility, without (or with minimal) government distortion. I don't think policymakers should choose the "right" level of national health spending, including private spending.

Since a few key government policies distort resource allocation in the direction of more health spending, I believe the result of eliminating or reducing these distortions would be lower private health spending. If someone chooses to spend a large share of their income on health care, I'm all for it, so long as policies aren't pushing them in that direction. And right now, they are.

Reply – Quote
]]> By: Anna von Reitz http://keithhennessey.com/2009/10/08/numbers-matter/comment-page-1/#comment-12617 Anna von Reitz Tue, 13 Oct 2009 23:29:26 +0000 http://keithhennessey.com/2009/10/08/numbers-matter/#comment-12617 The only cure for high health care costs resides in two elements ---improvement in overall health of the citizens and in curbing inflation and litigation. The first element, individual human health choices, is beyond the control of government, though the government could provide a system to reward healthy lifestyles. The second element which requires reform of the tax and monetary system and tort reform, the government steadfastly refuses to address. So what we have here is a politically egoistic debate in which again, the American citizen stands to lose not only their money but their life. I'd be interested in your opinion of just how long the insiders in Washington think we are going to put up with this continual assault on our pocketbooks and freedom? <div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('12617','Anna von Reitz'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('12617','Anna von Reitz','The only cure for high health care costs resides in two elements ---improvement in overall health of the citizens and in curbing inflation and litigation. The first element, individual human health choices, is beyond the control of government, though the government could provide a system to reward healthy lifestyles. The second element which requires reform of the tax and monetary system and tort reform, the government steadfastly refuses to address. So what we have here is a politically egoistic debate in which again, the American citizen stands to lose not only their money but their life. I'd be interested in your opinion of just how long the insiders in Washington think we are going to put up with this continual assault on our pocketbooks and freedom? '); return false;">Quote</a></div> The only cure for high health care costs resides in two elements —improvement in overall health of the citizens and in curbing inflation and litigation. The first element, individual human health choices, is beyond the control of government, though the government could provide a system to reward healthy lifestyles. The second element which requires reform of the tax and monetary system and tort reform, the government steadfastly refuses to address. So what we have here is a politically egoistic debate in which again, the American citizen stands to lose not only their money but their life. I'd be interested in your opinion of just how long the insiders in Washington think we are going to put up with this continual assault on our pocketbooks and freedom?
Reply – Quote
]]> By: Some (totally optional) recommended readings! – Managerial Economics Weblog http://keithhennessey.com/2009/10/08/numbers-matter/comment-page-1/#comment-12587 Some (totally optional) recommended readings! – Managerial Economics Weblog Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:38:56 +0000 http://keithhennessey.com/2009/10/08/numbers-matter/#comment-12587 [...] Numbers matter, by Keith Hennessey [...]<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('12587','Some (totally optional) recommended readings! – Managerial Economics Weblog'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('12587','Some (totally optional) recommended readings! – Managerial Economics Weblog','[...] Numbers matter, by Keith Hennessey [...]'); return false;">Quote</a></div> [...] Numbers matter, by Keith Hennessey [...]
Reply – Quote
]]> By: Assorted Links (10/12/2009) – Jim Garven's Blog http://keithhennessey.com/2009/10/08/numbers-matter/comment-page-1/#comment-12585 Assorted Links (10/12/2009) – Jim Garven's Blog Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:06:08 +0000 http://keithhennessey.com/2009/10/08/numbers-matter/#comment-12585 [...] Numbers matter, by Keith Hennessey [...]<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('12585','Assorted Links (10\/12\/2009) – Jim Garven's Blog'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('12585','Assorted Links (10\/12\/2009) – Jim Garven's Blog','[...] Numbers matter, by Keith Hennessey [...]'); return false;">Quote</a></div> [...] Numbers matter, by Keith Hennessey [...]
Reply – Quote
]]> By: HlthConsult http://keithhennessey.com/2009/10/08/numbers-matter/comment-page-1/#comment-12574 HlthConsult Sun, 11 Oct 2009 14:46:48 +0000 http://keithhennessey.com/2009/10/08/numbers-matter/#comment-12574 Freddy- I am a little confused. The Feldstein plan did nothing to the payer market at all. IN THE PLAN, The Feds just provide vouchers to cover a portion of private insurance. Why did you think this is single payer? TSB <div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('12574','HlthConsult'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('12574','HlthConsult','Freddy- \n \nI am a little confused. The Feldstein plan did nothing to the payer market at all. IN THE PLAN, The Feds just provide vouchers to cover a portion of private insurance. Why did you think this is single payer? \n \nTSB '); return false;">Quote</a></div> Freddy-

I am a little confused. The Feldstein plan did nothing to the payer market at all. IN THE PLAN, The Feds just provide vouchers to cover a portion of private insurance. Why did you think this is single payer?

TSB

Reply – Quote
]]> By: HlthConsult http://keithhennessey.com/2009/10/08/numbers-matter/comment-page-1/#comment-12575 HlthConsult Sun, 11 Oct 2009 14:46:24 +0000 http://keithhennessey.com/2009/10/08/numbers-matter/#comment-12575 Freddy- I am a little confused. The Feldstein plan did nothing to the payer market at all. The Feds just provided vouchers to cover a portion of private insurance. Why did you think this is single payer? TSB <div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('12575','HlthConsult'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('12575','HlthConsult','Freddy- \n \nI am a little confused. The Feldstein plan did nothing to the payer market at all. The Feds just provided vouchers to cover a portion of private insurance. Why did you think this is single payer? \n \nTSB '); return false;">Quote</a></div> Freddy-

I am a little confused. The Feldstein plan did nothing to the payer market at all. The Feds just provided vouchers to cover a portion of private insurance. Why did you think this is single payer?

TSB

Reply – Quote
]]> By: Freddy http://keithhennessey.com/2009/10/08/numbers-matter/comment-page-1/#comment-12571 Freddy Sun, 11 Oct 2009 05:46:08 +0000 http://keithhennessey.com/2009/10/08/numbers-matter/#comment-12571 Oh, yea, nice clean plan - - - if what you want is single payer. <div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('12571','Freddy'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('12571','Freddy','Oh, yea, nice clean plan - - - if what you want is single payer. '); return false;">Quote</a></div> Oh, yea, nice clean plan – - – if what you want is single payer.
Reply – Quote
]]> By: Still Chewing Over the Baucus Bill – Blog Watch http://keithhennessey.com/2009/10/08/numbers-matter/comment-page-1/#comment-12553 Still Chewing Over the Baucus Bill – Blog Watch Fri, 09 Oct 2009 18:08:26 +0000 http://keithhennessey.com/2009/10/08/numbers-matter/#comment-12553 [...] Keith Hennessey writes, “numbers matter,” and spotlights “important numbers and economic forces in these bills that are receiving insufficient attention.” [...]<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('12553','Still Chewing Over the Baucus Bill – Blog Watch'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('12553','Still Chewing Over the Baucus Bill – Blog Watch','[...] Keith Hennessey writes, “numbers matter,” and spotlights “important numbers and economic forces in these bills that are receiving insufficient attention.” [...]'); return false;">Quote</a></div> [...] Keith Hennessey writes, “numbers matter,” and spotlights “important numbers and economic forces in these bills that are receiving insufficient attention.” [...]
Reply – Quote
]]> By: srp http://keithhennessey.com/2009/10/08/numbers-matter/comment-page-1/#comment-12549 srp Fri, 09 Oct 2009 00:17:25 +0000 http://keithhennessey.com/2009/10/08/numbers-matter/#comment-12549 I strongly disagree with the premise that the Congress should try to reduce PRIVATE as well as public spending on medical care. There is no earthly way to decide what percentage of GDP (or an individual's income) is the "correct" amount to spend. Why wouldn't you apply the same logic to entertainment or housing or food? We have research from Kevin Murphy and Robert Fogel that increasing expenditures on medical care have been a good thing overall. The problem is one of distorted incentives where much care is provided even though the cost exceeds the benefit to the patient because the patient and his provider have the wrong incentives. I'd much rather see a reform like one that would give Medicare recipients with a confirmed diagnosis the option of receiving a cash payment instead of treatment, with that payment set at some percentage of the cost of treatment (e.g. 35%). That might rein in medical spending on the public fisc. If you choose to "waste" your own money on medical care it is none of my business; if you are wasting my money through the public system I have a stake in it. <div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('12549','srp'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('12549','srp','I strongly disagree with the premise that the Congress should try to reduce PRIVATE as well as public spending on medical care. There is no earthly way to decide what percentage of GDP (or an individual's income) is the "correct" amount to spend. Why wouldn't you apply the same logic to entertainment or housing or food? We have research from Kevin Murphy and Robert Fogel that increasing expenditures on medical care have been a good thing overall. \n \nThe problem is one of distorted incentives where much care is provided even though the cost exceeds the benefit to the patient because the patient and his provider have the wrong incentives. I'd much rather see a reform like one that would give Medicare recipients with a confirmed diagnosis the option of receiving a cash payment instead of treatment, with that payment set at some percentage of the cost of treatment (e.g. 35%). That might rein in medical spending on the public fisc. If you choose to "waste" your own money on medical care it is none of my business; if you are wasting my money through the public system I have a stake in it. '); return false;">Quote</a></div> I strongly disagree with the premise that the Congress should try to reduce PRIVATE as well as public spending on medical care. There is no earthly way to decide what percentage of GDP (or an individual's income) is the "correct" amount to spend. Why wouldn't you apply the same logic to entertainment or housing or food? We have research from Kevin Murphy and Robert Fogel that increasing expenditures on medical care have been a good thing overall.

The problem is one of distorted incentives where much care is provided even though the cost exceeds the benefit to the patient because the patient and his provider have the wrong incentives. I'd much rather see a reform like one that would give Medicare recipients with a confirmed diagnosis the option of receiving a cash payment instead of treatment, with that payment set at some percentage of the cost of treatment (e.g. 35%). That might rein in medical spending on the public fisc. If you choose to "waste" your own money on medical care it is none of my business; if you are wasting my money through the public system I have a stake in it.

Reply – Quote
]]> By: Gary Gross http://keithhennessey.com/2009/10/08/numbers-matter/comment-page-1/#comment-12548 Gary Gross Thu, 08 Oct 2009 22:23:38 +0000 http://keithhennessey.com/2009/10/08/numbers-matter/#comment-12548 I posted here that Sen. Baucus was trying to hide the costs of his bill: <a href="http://www.letfreedomringblog.com/?p=5778" target="_blank">http://www.letfreedomringblog.com/?p=5778</a> After briefly reading the CBO report, I've posted more comments on the bill: <a href="http://www.letfreedomringblog.com/?p=5844" target="_blank">http://www.letfreedomringblog.com/?p=5844</a> <a href="http://www.letfreedomringblog.com/?p=5856" target="_blank">http://www.letfreedomringblog.com/?p=5856</a> Whichever way you cut it, the bill is harmful to America's prosperity. <div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('12548','Gary Gross'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('12548','Gary Gross','I posted here that Sen. Baucus was trying to hide the costs of his bill: \n \n<a href=\"http:\/\/www.letfreedomringblog.com\/?p=5778\" target=\"_blank\">http:\/\/www.letfreedomringblog.com\/?p=5778<\/a> \n \nAfter briefly reading the CBO report, I've posted more comments on the bill: \n \n<a href=\"http:\/\/www.letfreedomringblog.com\/?p=5844\" target=\"_blank\">http:\/\/www.letfreedomringblog.com\/?p=5844<\/a> \n<a href=\"http:\/\/www.letfreedomringblog.com\/?p=5856\" target=\"_blank\">http:\/\/www.letfreedomringblog.com\/?p=5856<\/a> \n \nWhichever way you cut it, the bill is harmful to America's prosperity. '); return false;">Quote</a></div> I posted here that Sen. Baucus was trying to hide the costs of his bill:

http://www.letfreedomringblog.com/?p=5778

After briefly reading the CBO report, I've posted more comments on the bill:

http://www.letfreedomringblog.com/?p=5844
http://www.letfreedomringblog.com/?p=5856

Whichever way you cut it, the bill is harmful to America's prosperity.

Reply – Quote
]]>