The end of socialized medicine

ronald-reagan-socialized-medicine-lp2.jpgPeter Huber is a Manhattan Institute senior fellow, an MIT-trained engineer and a lawyer who has authored several books, including Hard Green: Saving the Environment from the Environmentalists and Galileoís Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom. In this provocative City Journal article, Huber observes that the complexity of modern diseases virtually assures that a “one-size-fits-all” socialized medical system will fail:

That is the real crisis in health careónot medicine thatís too expensive for the poor but medicine thatís too expensive for the rich, too expensive ever to get to market at all. Human-ity is still waiting for countless more Lipitors to treat incurable cancers, Alzheimerís, arthritis, cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis, Parkinsonís, and a heartbreakingly long list of other dreadful but less common afflictions. Each new billion-dollar Lipitor will be deliveredóif at allóby the lure of a multibillion-dollar patent. The only way to get three-cent pills to the poor is first to sell three-dollar pills to the rich.
With almost $30 trillion under management, Wall Street could easily double the couple of trillion it currently has invested in molecular medicine. The fastest way for Washington to deliver more health, more cheaply, to more people would be to unleash that capital by reaffirming patents and stepping out of the way.
On the other side of the pill, molecular medicine can only be propelled by the informed, disciplined consumer. Any scheme to weaken his role will end up doing more harm than good. Foggy promises of one-size, universal care maintain the illusion that the authorities will take good care of everyone. They reaffirm the obsolete and false view that health care begins somewhere out there, not somewhere in here.
Neither Pfizer nor Washington can ever stuff health itself into a one-price uniform, One America boxónot when health is as personal as ice cream, genes, and pregnancy, not when every mother controls her personal consumption of carbs, cholesterol, Flintstones, and Lipitor. But the thought that government authority can get more bodies in better chemical balance than free markets and free people is more preposterous than anything found in Das Kapital. Freedom is now pursuing a pharmacopoeia as varied, ingenious, complex, flexible, fecund, and personal as life itself, and the pursuit will continue for as long as lifestyles change and marriages mix and match. Given time, efficient markets will deliver a glut of cheap Lipitor for every glut of cheap cholesterol. And given time, free people will find their way to a better mix.

Read the entire article here.

The insecurity of big-time college coaches

big-money.jpgThe Dallas Morning News’ Kevin Sherrington observes that the NCAA’s the absurdly-high salaries of big-time college football coaches has a high price:

Football coaches at most Top 25 programs draw salaries equivalent to Fortune 500 CEOs, but they don’t generate similar revenues.
How do they rate their paydays then? Coaches simply benefit from an arms-race mentality in college sports. You can’t compete without an indoor practice facility, luxury suites, a weight room the size of a football field or a head coach drawing less than seven figures.

As noted in previous posts here, here and here, big-time college coaches benefit from the NCAA’s regulation of compensation for players. Inasmuch as the NCAA does not allow direct compensation of the players for the money being generated, the money has to go somewhere — i.e., into the wallets of the coaches. However, if the players were paid market compensation for the income that they generate, then the money paid to the players would not be available for the coaches. In all likelihood, the compensation of coaches would decrease.
As I’ve noted on several occasions, big-time college sports is an entertaining form of corruption. But if the institutions want to continue competing at that level, treating big-time college sports as a true business and compensating the players for the income they generate sure seems like a more honest way to approach it.

Kling on GMU Economics

GMU_PLogo_RGB.jpgArnold Kling provides this interesting TCS Daily op-ed on the innovative George Mason University Economics Department, whose members have done a remarkable job over the past several years promoting the understanding of economics issues through the blogosphere. As Kling noted earlier here:

I like to put it his way: at [the University of] Chicago, they say “Markets work well. Let’s use markets.” At MIT, they say “Markets fail. Let’s use government.” At GMU, they say “Markets fail. Let’s use markets.”