On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Doug Pensinger <brig...@zo.com> wrote: > John Williams wrote:
>> http://american.com/archive/2009/august/maybe-we-should-spend-more-on-healthcare > > Yikes. Let's first look at the source of the article, The American > Enterprise Institute. Actually, the source of the article is the author, James V. DeLong. The publisher is The American, and the owner of the publisher is the American Enterprise Institute. Here's a bio for James V. DeLong: http://cei.org/people/james-v-delong > Described in Wiki as "some of the leading > architects of the second Bush administration's public policy". Well, if you are interested in the background of the author, Jame V. DeLong, you could look at specifics of his life, in the bio above. He does not seem to be closely associated with the American Enterprise Institute. In fact, his associations look rather diverse, a quality which you have praised. Or we could continue playing your game of six degrees of separation. James V. DeLong can be linked to the Clinton administration in two steps (1. Bradford, 2. Clinton's deputy assistant secretary of Treasury), and those steps are less tenuous than the two you have just outlined. > If you want to figure out how expensive health care should be, looking at > other systems around the world should at least give a ballpark idea as > to what we should be paying. In what sense "should be"? I don't see why I should choose something just because someone else has. I should be able to make my own choices as to what benefits me the most. Which is one of the points DeLong was making: | The proper level of spending depends on the value derived from it, | and in the end this level should be whatever results from the sum of | consumer choices made in the light of the value received. > And if we're doing the lions share of > the innovation when it comes to medical research, then maybe we need > to figure out how to get the rest of the world that benefits just as > much as we do (if not more) One way to accomplish this is for American companies who develop useful new techniques to profit by selling related goods or services throughout the world. > Personally, I think that a system that places an emphasis on > boner drugs, reformulation of proven drugs and anti-depressants that > don't work is in need of an overhaul in and of itself. I don't have a problem with any of those drugs being sold to people who want to buy them. Just because I don't want to buy them (at the moment), does not mean that others should be unable to buy them. We should all have the choice to buy any of those drugs, and as many more as people can think up. Diversity is good. > Finally, if the proposed reforms are really what we need to fix the > system, why weren't they implemented when they had the ear of the > president and a cooperative congress? Who is "they"? Are you saying that James V. DeLong's proposed reforms are not worthwhile because the American Enterprise Institute did not persuade the Bush administration to eliminate the tax subsidy for employment-based health insurance? I don't think that could be what you are saying, since it does not make a lot of sense. But I cannot imagine what else you meant. _______________________________________________ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
