Democracy in Action

There's industry support? AHIP has hit the ground swinging. Big Pharma is threatening to overturn the tables if they have to pay one penny more than they have themselves specified. The hospital lobby is bankrolling the Teabaggers.

If this is support, I'd hate to see opposition.

Ezra, Industry support??
So why is AHIP funding the screamers? Good documentation on TPM and the Rachel Maddow show.

Hey Ezra, good news...I found an expert for you. He's the Dean of the Harvard Medical School and his solution for healthcare is more free market and less government. Although the article was written in 1994 his arguments are still valid today.

http://ecommons.med.harvard.edu/ec_res/nt/A29698DD-A40C-4FD2-9926-718E04778B37/HealthCareReform_Paper_Fall1994.pdf

Miller is a stand up guy and a dang fine congresscritter. It is a real shame that some bozo would threaten him like this.

Dean Flier's paper (cited by kingstu01 above) is great reading. See esp. pp. 361 and 366.

I do see "democracy in action" in that the American public is unlikely to allow its legislators to accept ANY of the current proposals but WOULD accept a reasonable proposal once is offered.

"I do see "democracy in action" in that the American public is unlikely to allow its legislators to accept ANY of the current proposals but WOULD accept a reasonable proposal once is offered."

rmgregory, I think you are correct. I support more free market and less government but even I like some aspects of the Wyden Bennett bill.

Ezra on the free mrket (I agree):

Grand Junction, Colo.: Ezra - What's a succint counter to people who continuously assert "the market will solve all" and the like, in reference to health care reform or any other ail of the day? It's mind numbing and I want friends with this "view" to think about what they're saying.

Ezra Klein: Look around.

The thing about the market is that it doesn't solve problems. It works towards efficiencies. The market's solution to the problem of "a lot of people can't afford health-care coverage" is that "a lot of people can't afford health-care coverage." That's what the market does: Given scarce resources, it apportions them according to the capacity to pay. A lot of people can't afford a Lexus. Thus, a lot of people don't have a Lexus. That's not a market failure. It's the market's solution.

The market isn't failing to solve the problem here. It's just that we don't want the market's solution. We want people to have health care. So we need to go beyond the market. It's the same as fire departments or national defense or roads. There are things we want people to have even if they can't pay for it.

kingstu01:

I would also imagine it's true that you support some aspects of the current bill: even the insurance industry agrees that some of it's practices can be curtailed.

The problem is that our democracy has no mechanism at all to present a reasonable proposal to the public for review. The 1994 paper sat in a box, except for health savings accounts, even with free market types in charge of the country. Winning health care reform creates losers, e.g. the opposition party, the insurance industry, etc. This creates incentives to oppose "reasonable" ideas. The choke points we put in place magnify these tendencies, so you design a bill that can get enacted.

Right now, those Republicans in the room seem content with an unacceptably less costly version of the President's proposal. It might make for better policy to have those in the room who see a place for vouchers, IRA's and HSA as a way to make the exchanges work more like a market.
We don't, so the possible existence of a reasonable proposal doesn't really change the choice that we face in 2009: the status quo or something like the President's plan.