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
SHARE
Tyler,
"...I'm against price controls. But I'm all in favor of budgeting. In fact, I want X to be as low as possible, because when X=0 for all Y, socialized medicine disappears by default."
As does all provision of medical services. See how many MRI's you can get for a buck.
Regards, Don
1. Government pays 50% of all healthcare costs (with taxpayer funds).
2. Government has significant market power.
If government refuses to pay more than X for service Y and they pay less than the market clearing price won't we end up with price controls?
What I meant was "pay for performance." If a doctor checks a box saying that he did X, he gets a bonus. If he says he did Y, he gets a penalty.
In theory, this is brilliant. In practice it will be gamed and lead to perverse results.
In theory, this is brilliant.
In theory this is brilliant only when the consumer of the services is the one who assess the performance. Otherwise, you get a system that is easily gamed or requires a labyrinth of government metrics and still provides incentive for doctors to reject the sickest patients.
http://devilish-details.blogspot.com/2009/08/unintended-consequences-of-paying.html
If the government made X=0 for all Y, where Y=Medicare, we could afford Obama's health care plan.
Let's do it!
The government sets the minimum price via Medicare payments to providers. Private insurers typically pay 10 to 20% more than the government.
JohnnyB: That's not true. There's a lot of regional variation. In Phoenix, private insurers often pay less than Medicare.
[Comment removed pending confirmation of email address. Email the webmaster@econlib.org to request restoring this comment. A valid email address is required to post comments on EconLog.--Econlib Ed.]
I like the way Bryan makes this distinction. I really wish conservatives could get on board with budgeting. Unfortunately, they seem to have made "rationing" into a dirty word, when the best possible thing for the private market is a budgeted (and therefore limited) government plan.
Look at Britain as an example. The government's care is budgeted (£30,000 per QALY, IIRC), and there is a very vibrant private sector.