One thing I find frustrating about the whole health care debate, on both sides, is the presumption that more doctors and hospitals and technologies (either paid by the private or public sector) is the lowest cost way of improving the health of the population. But given how many illnesses are caused by lifestyle (overeating, excessive drinking, smoking) or environmental (pollution) factors, we need to be considering other solutions to improve health. A Pigovian tax on sources of air pollution offset by lower income taxes would improve the health of the population, be a net benefit to the economy (by replacing an economically damaging tax with a less damaging one) and come at zero financial cost. Why do I feel like I am the only economist, on either the left or the right, talking about these things?
More here: One Economist's Thoughts On the Health Care Debate.
More here: One Economist's Thoughts On the Health Care Debate.
Comments
I generally like the pigovian tax idea to improve health. But the idea extended to air pollution I think may just be a way to justify a carbon tax which I know you are in favor of. However, the rationale largely fails in this case, since air pollution (caused by carbon emissions) is a global issue. If the US enacts it, but many other countries (China) do not, then the health benefit is likely going to be slim to none in the US as air pollution exists in the atmosphere and can travel globally, and the US is but one (albeit major) player in air pollution. Further, air pollution is hardly the number one cause of health problems in the world. Most would argue that lifestyle choices far outweigh environmental factors in causing health problems. If that is the case, you should be focusing on taxing cigarettes, ‘bad’ foods, and the like, not air pollution. Taxing those things can be quite efficiency-improving to the degree it corrects myopia issues that cause negative externalities on our future.
Many so called lifestyle illnesses are the result of social stress including lack of employment and healthcare though, so it would not be useless but it could be made much broader.
I have yet to see a modestly detailed treatment of HR3200, the US House Bill on health care reform.
It is nice to finally see someone point out the massive regulation that already exists. In all my reading, “One Economist’s Thoughts On the Health Care Debate.” is the first place I’ve heard this mentioned even once.
Once I understood this single fact, it became clear that the regulation potentially creates barriers to entry which limits supply. This limitation on supply holds prices high.
The four fundamental elements of the US health care bill attempts to offset the existing regulations within the existing free market.
1 – Doctor and nursing pipelines and loan forgiveness to increase supply
2 – Medicare reform to reduce “willingness to pay” of the largest single customer on the demand side.
3 – A public option health insurance to add competition to the oligopolies.
4 – Mandated coverage so that the heath insurance functions the way insurance is suppose to function.
It will be interesting to see if these accomplish the goal of price reduction.
Something you didn’t consider:
when you are youn, you do foolish things and do not realize the ramnifications of what you do or say.
As an economist, you got many years to learn things, the important thing to do, is to keep your eyes and ears open at everything in order to show neutraity to issues.
You can’t seem to do that here as you have a disdain to fatty people without knowing what caused their “obesity” which again could be caused by a medicine, diabetes, an injury, hormonal changes; of course none of the causes would reflect on an economist’s decision, right?
There is/was a TV program on Lifetime called “DROP DEAD DIVA” they explore the issues of thinness vs what you clal obesity, if they have reruns watch it to learn.
So, it wouldn’t hurt to think before writing, especially coming from a young economist.