ARNOLD KLING
August 14, 2011
The Top Political Contributors
August 11, 2011
Gender and the New Commanding Heights
August 11, 2011
Jamie Galbraith Makes an Assumption
August 11, 2011
Macroeconometrics: The Science of Hubris
August 10, 2011
Real and Nominal Bond Yields
BRYAN CAPLAN
August 14, 2011
The Effect of Thumb Sucking on Income
August 12, 2011
The Voice of Cold, Hard Truth to All Would-Be Educators
August 12, 2011
Ability, Morality, and Prosperity: A Paper and a Report
August 11, 2011
The Theory of Time and Frittering
August 10, 2011
Male Variance and the Remnants of the Gender Gap
DAVID HENDERSON
August 9, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken", Part Two
August 8, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken"
August 5, 2011
James Bovard on the Peace Corps
August 4, 2011
Summers Way Off on FDR and 1941
August 3, 2011
The "Amazon" Tax


Unless he plans to do away with Medicare, we'll still have a system terribly crippled by interventionism.
When I think about the living will form that my doctor is giving out to all his patients, it makes me wonder is people are not already moving to solve this problem without government help. They are at least addressing cost that they see as worthless at the end of life. It would of course be better if people could get insurance that excludes certain high cost low return treatments throughout life, along with high deductibles. My guess is that the most effective medicine is not all that expensive (antibiotics and vaccinations come to mind). The middle area is what we need insurance for treatable cancer and heart disease can be expensive but these days treatment can deliver years of good life but currently we treat people even the likelihood of recovery is very small with not regard to the expense. I often wonder if the insurance companies offered a buyout feature for example saying you can get this full treatment or a lesser treatment and this amount of money equal to half the expense of the treatment what it would show about people’s values. (Some might take the money go to Apollo healthcare in India). Anyway I think that the results would be very interesting and might show how much value we are getting for our money.
I edited my above error full post.
When I think about the “living will” form that my doctor is giving out to all his patients, it makes me wonder is people are not already moving to solve the cost problem, without government help. They are at least addressing end of life cost that they see as absolutely worthless. It would of course be better if people could buy insurance that excludes certain high cost low return treatments. My guess is that the most effective medicine is not all that expensive (antibiotics and vaccinations come to mind). The higher cost areas that often help are what we need insurance for. For example treatable cancer and heart disease can be expensive but these days treatment often delivers years of good life. A problem that I see is that currently people are often treated with expensive care even if the likelihood of recovery is very, very small.
I think that an interesting experiment would be to have some economists get with some insurance companies and offer patients a buyout in place of treatment. For example you could offer the patients the option of full treatment or a lesser treatment and various amounts of cash paid to the patient for his forgoing the cost of treatment. This would reveal people’s values. Some people might take the money and go to Apollo healthcare in India others might choose to die in dignity and leave a bigger inheritance. Anyway I think that the results would be very interesting and might show how much value we are getting for our money.
The British National Institute for Clinical Excellence does the kind of thing you're proposing.