IBJOpinion

HICKS: Health care experts make poor economists

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Mike Hicks

In almost every place that two or more Americans gather, health care is debated. Because the bills before Congress are inaccessible, the debate has shifted instead to principles such as the role of government and individual freedoms.

I think this a healthy thing. But for advocates of the bills before Congress, it exposes some tough questions.

Despite what you may hear, we have universal health coverage in the United States through a combination of private insurance, public assistance and regulatory restrictions on hospitals. The structure of this explains some of the growth in health care expenditures, but it is not all of the explanation.

Economists have long known that we spend an increasing share of our income on health care as we become wealthier. This is the textbook definition of a luxury good.

In truth, health care is a fairly simple personal service that is complicated by government rules and institutions (like the American Medical Association). Health care financing—which is part, but not all of the issue at hand—is very complex.

Despite the fundamental simplicity of the health care supply chain, advocacy research on the issues is confusing and often quite bad. I think this is because so many in health care also dabble in economic policy. It is as unwise to go to an economist for surgery as it is to visit a physician about economics, though the immediate results are less unpleasant.

My favorite example is the much-touted “health care costs” of smoking, which are said to run into the hundreds of billions of dollars annually. This is true, of course, but only if you would not otherwise die. Most of us will, and often of something more expensive to treat, such as old age.

The truth is we will spend more, not less, on health care as we become richer—and live to be older. We Americans have been doing both for well over 200 years. But, many folks do not like the way health care dollars are spent. We live in a world of scarcity, where everything is rationed. Free markets, not government commissions, will always be better at it. So, I think households are best suited to make these choices.

This brings us to the final folly of the health care debate—cost.

The bills before Congress are touted by their advocates to actually cut the cost of health care through a combination of regulatory changes and a government insurance option. The Congressional Budget Office and everyone with a lick of common sense disagrees.

The real anger, though, is aimed at the government insurance option. There is good reason for this, because any government insurance option can quickly crowd out all other forms of health-care delivery except for the very, very rich.

I am sure there is much good in the bill and, to be sure, health care insurance rules can use some tweaking. But if you like the government-insurance option, you no doubt think Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were great for housing markets.•
__________
Hicks is director of the Center for Business and Economic Research at Ball State University. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at cber@bsu.edu.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Liberals do not understand that marriage is not about a law or a right ... it is a rite of religous faith. Liberals want "legal" recognition of their homosexual relationship ... which is OK by me ... but it will never be classified as a marriage because marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. You can gain / obtain legal recognition / status ... but most people will not acknowledge that 2 people of the same sex are married. It's not really possible as long as marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

  2. That second phrase, "...nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens..." is the one. If you can't understand that you lack a fundamental understanding of the Constitution and I can't help you. You're blind with prejudice.

  3. Why do you conservatives always go to the marrying father/daughter, man/animal thing? And why should I keep my sexuality to myself? I see straights kissy facing in public all the time.

  4. I just read the XIV Amendment ... I read where no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property ... nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens ... I didn't see anything in it regarding the re-definition of marriage.

  5. I worked for Community Health Network and the reason that senior leadership left is because they were not in agreement with the way the hospital was being ran, how employees were being treated, and most of all how the focus on patient care was nothing more than a poster to stand behind. Hiring these analyst to come out and tell people who have done the job for years that it is all being done wrong now...hint, hint, get rid of employees by calling it "restructuring" is a cheap and easy way out of taking ownership. Indiana is an "at-will" state, so there doesn't have to be a "reason" for dismissal of employment. I have seen former employees that went through this process lose their homes, cars, faith...it is very disturbing. The patient's as well have seen less than disireable care. It all comes full circle.

ADVERTISEMENT