Jim's point is that some of this is about wealth transfer from the healthy to the sick. That's right. But the fact that the real world sits between these two extremes means that the bill is about efficiency too. In the real world health outcomes are partially random and partially non-random, and individuals know a little more about the non-random part than insurers do. These real-world facts can cause the insurance market to collapse, as it seems to be doing right now. If the market collapses, people can't insure acute health events even at actuarily fair rates, putting us in a situation much like Jim's latter extreme, even though the real world isn't nearly that extreme.
2. I worry that the ban on excluding
3. Intrade.com puts passage at about 93% as I write this. So, what's to prevent Bart Stupak & Co., or folks close to them, making heavy bets against passage, voting "No", and making a gazillion of dollars?
Update: 4. Brad Delong nails it. I too am utterly confounded by the exaggerated tenor of this debate. Note that Delong doesn't mention the arguably more liberal plan of Nixon's, which Ted Kennedy later regretted not supporting.
No comments:
Post a Comment