Econlib Resources
Subscribe to EconLog
XML (Full articles)RDF (Excerpts) Feedburner (One-click subscriptions) Subscribe by author
Bryan CaplanDavid Henderson Garett Jones More
FAQ
(Instructions and more options)
|
TRACKBACKS (1 to date)
TrackBack URL: http://econlog.econlib.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2067
The author at Enemy of the State in a related article titled Humans vs Pets writes:
COMMENTS (5 to date)
Charlie writes:
Bryan, It seems your just kicking the argument down the road. When I read the post, I immediately thought of Robin Hanson and the Rand experiment also, does medical spending make pets healthier at the margin? If it doesn't make pets healthier at the margin, then it is evidence ending third party payments may not curb wasteful spending. If pet spending on medical care is much more than human spending, the argument runs the other way. Charlie Posted July 14, 2009 11:52 AM
Ernieboy writes:
Why not compare per capita growth in health care spending to per animal growth in vet services. At least control for differences in growth rates for the two populations. I don't have the numbers, but my guess is animals have grown faster than people. Posted July 14, 2009 12:04 PM
Arthur_500 writes:
Supply and demand continue to define the arguments and encompass the effect of third-party payers. When there is defined source of revenue it creates a floor. I can't sell my services for $100/ hour if my clients can only pay $25/ hour. However if I know that a third-party payer will supply the cash then I will certainly demand it. Veterinary care indeed places individuals in a position of determining what the price of life means to them. Is that test really necessary? Is euthanasia appropriate? And yet when we look at our own lives we want everything that can be supplied as long as we don't have to pay for it. Posted July 14, 2009 12:48 PM
Mike Rulle writes:
Analyzing one's own behavior is just one data point. But it is truly an excellent one. We understand the emotions and feelings of the decision making process. We can do fairly reasonable "what if" analysis. We can compare one set of behaviors under certain circumstances with other behaviors under other circumstances. We can trace how our behaviors change through time. While no person is a perfect observer of self, there is far more accurate information about oneself than there is of any group of individuals in artificially constructed experiments. I also think we are each very similar to each other. So while it is still one data point, it can help us reach conclusions. Therefore! How can anyone think that 3rd party payment does not lead to higher health care expenditures? Even if the "cat and dog" study were to imply otherwise, I would conclude it was wrong. But this is so obvious. If one pays a fixed price "up front" for a "year's worth of goods or services", one is intuitively "incentivised" to acquire as much of that good as possible; as long as its marginal cost (even counting time spent) is lower than the perceived marginal benefit. In health care, the marginal benefit can be very high, even if the test procedure is itself almost worthless. If it has even a .5% chance of finding something that some other test you already took did not, the "expected value" can be perceived as very high. The marginal cost in many 3rd party payment plans is virtually zero. Posted July 15, 2009 4:33 PM
Buckland writes:
Meh. It's hard to get excited about first derivative arguments when the comparable functions are of such different magnitudes. Since the overall size of one market is approximately 200X the other, meaningful comparisons are the exclusive domain of academics and those who have the ability to waste other peoples money. Posted July 15, 2009 5:17 PM
Comments for this entry
have been closed
|
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||