Death panels, rationing and Medicare
A good post on the healthcare debate from Alex Harris of the OpenMarket blog:
Any arguments about providing more entitlements somehow reducing the total amount of entitlements just donât work. Insurance produces moral hazard. People overconsume goods they get for free on the margin. Thatâs Econ 101. The Democrats may have realized this and so proposed various cost-cutting measures, likeÂ panels to determine who gets care and who doesnât.
A bunch of nutters on the right got all up in arms about the panels. Why?Â Because they would reduce benefits. OfÂ course if you want government-run health care, youâll have to ration. But, my god, isnât this better than government-run health care thatÂ doesnât ration?Â Â …Â Instead, we basically face the choice between government-run health care that rations and government-run health care that doesnât and so utterly destroys the nationâs economy. Which would we rather have? This is the choice thatâs lost in the âdeath panelsâ rhetoric. …Â Â Which should libertarians prefer: a limited new government package that provides minimal care (e.g. with high deductibles) or a big luxury package that provides everything? I would think we should prefer the minimal package (so long, of course, as private health care isnâtÂ outlawed and so people can still get additional care elsewhere).
Me: Â So that is the choice, I think. A minimalist government-run plan with high deductibles (and the option of getting extra care in the marketplace), or a private-insurance system that subsidizes the poor. Simple, yes?