Delivering Health
Insurance Companies Aren’t the Ones Blocking Reforms
show comments
  • qet

    Klein insists that “hundreds or even thousands” of private insurers can be the payors, but that the government must directly set rates. All that does is turn the insurers into quasi-state entities and is effectively single payor where the one payor has many branch offices across the country. The Left always thinks that a problem can be solved by fiscal fiat: raise the minimum wage, for instance, or cap prices, as in health care. Doctors and hospitals are for-profit enterprises who privilege their own financial interests, just like the rest of us. Attempting to grind them under the heel of State will eventually turn them into apathetic underperforming providers and we will have a situation just like what the UK has with the NHS. The “middle class” of health care will disappear just like the economic middle class is disappearing now.

  • Kavanna

    Health care costs need to be brought down. There are two ways to reduce the cost of anything: price controls, then putting up with all the side effects (irrational shortages and gluts, black markets, widespread contempt for the law); or free price competition, where the pressure to maximize welfare leads to everyone trying to keep their costs under control.

    Insurance companies are among the big winners of ObamaCare; that was by design, not an accident. The administration and Congressional staffers who worked on ObamaCare later left government to work for … the insurance industry.

    Ezra Klein is an idiot.

  • Anthony

    The selling of health care (pharmaceutical industry 19.9% ROR; medical products and equipment industry 16.3 ROR; hospitals and doctors $$$) remains public policy issue absent of focus.

  • free_agent

    You say that Canada hasn’t done anything to innovate on delivery, but it *has* cut prices by 50% relative to the US. Which means that costs *are* lower, mostly due to providers (that is, the actual people doing the work) getting paid less.

    I would like to think that a robust market for health care would bring down costs, as robust markets have for many things. But in all the cases where markets have worked, customers have been willing to walk away rather than pay the asked price. Once we decide that morally even poor people can get treatments that are expensive to provide, it’s difficult to rein in prices, because providers don’t have to be price-competitive.

  • SisyphusRolls

    Left unsaid here is how much the AMA and hospital associations, working with states, have blocked increases in supply in health care by preventing new medical schools, requiring certificates of need for new diagnostic or hospital facilities, etc. If we could get rid of that, along with stopping the AMA’s direct involvement in setting procedure pricing in Medicare (from which Medicaid and most insurers take their direction), we could actually have something approaching a real market in health care. Even with some form of ACA, that might be an improvement.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to and affiliated sites.