single-payer health plan

[Jim Devine <JNDF%LMUACAD.BITNET@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On the post-Keynesian thought network
awhile back, Professor Davidson was criticizing David Colander's
"new Keynesianism."  I must admit I couldn't get excited about such
abstract issues.  But what are people to say when he writes (in
"the Colander Newsletter" a magazine that comes with his intro
economics text):

With the single-payer plan, "the government, not individuals,
would decide what health care individuals would receive, and
government would pay the providers of that health care."

This ignores Business Week's conclusion that Canadian-style
single-payer would preserve the individual's freedom to choose
a physician and the autonomy of the doctor.  It also ignores
the way in  which HMOs and medical-insurance plans currently
"decide what health care individuals receive." BTW, Colander
conflates the Canadian and British systems.

Colander also suggests that since under single-payer, medical
care is "free," it would have to be rationed.  "Medical
problems with the 'highest social benefit of treating' would
be covered down to where the allotted money ran out."

As if we don't have rationing now. Nowadays, the "highest social
benefit" is determined by those with the most money.

Finally, Colander notes that single-payer isn't likely because
of political opposition.  He should have included his own
contribution here.

sincerely,

Jim Devine   BITNET: jndf@lmuacad    INTERNET: jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA
310/338-2948 (off); 310/202-6546 (hm); FAX: 310/338-1950
if bitnet address fails, try jndf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx