I've said it before but it bears repeating. In my opinion, Krugman olng ago ceased to be an honest economist, and is now little more than a vocal shill (albeit one, sadly, with a large following) for the political left and statism in general. Definitely click through and read both posts below for information from good economists.
But Not Sufficiently Sacred for Physicians to Work for Free: "Admittedly, the politically engineered wedge separating the receipt of health-care services from the responsibility for paying for these services creates problems. But the best way to address these problems is to remove the wedge rather than to arrogantly suggest that some mysterious transcendent force will more reliably look after individuals’ health-care needs than will those individuals themselves as they operate in markets in which insurers and physicians must compete for consumer dollars."
CARPE DIEM: Because They're Not Spending Their Own Money, Patients Aren't Consumers, But They SHOULD Be: "Krugman is correct that patients are not consumers, but for a completely different reason that Krugman misses entirely: Almost 90% of health care costs are paid with 'other people's money' (insurance companies, government and employers, see chart above, data here), and only about 11% is paid 'out of pocket' by patients. So patients are no longer the 'consumers' of health care, and they haven't been for a long time, because the 'consumer' paying almost the entire cost of medical care is a third party. Over time, the 'consumer' paying the bill for health care services has gradually become third party payers, and the trends projected in the chart above indicate that it won't get any better in the future."
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Drs. Boudreaux and Perry Set Krugman Straight
Labels: economics, healthcare
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

2 comments:
Simple way to tell good economists from bad economists: Does the minimum wage cost jobs?
Rumpletweezer, that's definitely one of the best tells I know of. Krugman seems to always put himself between a rock and a hard place when he starts to argue the finer points of economics. He takes a very normative broad economic view that does little other than allow lefty politicos to quote him as though he was the definitive authority. Real honest economists have thoroughly proven him wrong him and time again, although of course in his rarefied world, empirical information is of little use.
Post a Comment