Another area in which we face the prospect of calculational chaos is health care. By wildly subsidizing and stimulating the demand for health care services of selected special interest groups beginning in the mid-1960s, the United States government precipitated a never ending and catastrophic upward-spiral of health care costs.

In addition, the irrational and labyrinthine structure of regulations and prohibitions imposed by government on the industry has massively distorted resource allocation, restricted supply, and further driven up the costs of medical care. The tragic but predictable result of such intervention is that many of the unsubsidized members of society have been effectively priced out of the market for health care. The simple and humane solution to this tragedy is to quickly terminate these antisocial subsidies and dismantle the destructive regulatory structure, permitting the competitive price appraisement and resource allocation process too operate unimpeded.

But, of course, the internal dynamic of the welfare state is never to retrench and risk disaffection of its pampered and powerful constituencies, for example, the American Medical Association, the American Association for Retired Persons, the entrenched bureaucracies of nonprofit hospitals, and so on. And so we face the prospect of “national health care insurance” which is a euphemism for the thoroughgoing socialization of the health care sector, with its resultant shortages, further suppression of competitive incentives, and deterioration of quality. But this is simply another example of the mad logic of the welfare state: since the government produces nothing that is valuable in terms of social appraisement, it can only supply welfare to some by siphoning off the resources and destroying the economic arrangements that support the welfare of others. In attempting to repair the politically unpopular destruction of its earlier policies, it is driven to further isolated acts of destruction until it arrives, with cruel and ultimate irony, at the policy for the systematic destruction of society and human welfare, that is, socialism.

That was from Joseph Salerno’s postscript to Mises’ essay “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth.” This essay, first published in 1920, details why economic calculation is impossible in a system without private ownership of the means of production. As Salerno concludes his postscript, “[Mises' essay] surely ranks among the most important economic articles written this century.” This should be required reading in America’s high schools.

This annual report provides patients with some of the information they need to determine whether the time they wait for access to new medicines in Canada is unnecessarily long, and whether publicly funded and managed drug insurance programs provide adequate benefits and choice for patients. We hope that this report will encourage policy makers to consider policy alternatives that empower consumers with greater choice. This report focuses on new patented medicines because this class of drugs is uniquely affected by public policies that delay access for patients. Because government approval of generic drugs is based on the assumption that generics are copies of new drugs that have previously been approved, there is no substantive delay (observed or expected) before the public has access to generic products; consequently, this class of drugs is not studied in this report.

More here.

Megan McArdle, How Many People Die From Lack of Health Insurance?

But how likely is it that Medicaid is killing people?  Possible, I suppose, but not really all thatlikely.  Medicaid and Medicare patients, too, are not like the broader population.  The authors in fact recognized this fact in their paper, pointing out that these patients have higher rates of disability–but then failed to address the obvious question this raised about their data on the uninsured.

Megan McArdle, Myth Diagnosis

But we should have had a better handle on the case for expanded coverage—and, more important, the evidence behind it—before we embarked on a year-long debate that divided our house against itself. Certainly, we should have had it before Congress voted on the largest entitlement expansion in 40 years. Unfortunately, most of us forgot to ask a fundamental question, because we were certain we already knew the answer. By the time we got around to challenging our assumptions, it was too late to do anything except scream at each other from the sidelines.

Polls show that those who support ObamaCare don’t feel strongly about it, while those who oppose it, feel strongly. Nobody really wants the “reform” Washington is offering us, least of all the voters of Massachusetts. They already have to pay for RomneyCare and aren’t willing to pay for ObamaCare too.

We are all revolted at the back-room dealings in Senate before Christmas. Voters in Massachusetts got the first chance to do something about it. Lucky for the rest of us, the Democrats are no longer filibuster proof.

The American people have won an exciting, but not surprising victory in Massachusetts this week! The people of Massachusetts have proven that they are not willing to give up entirely on the ideals that made our country.

Without dramatic change, we will end up with no doctors on Medicare and therefore no Medicare spending! Of course that won’t really happen, more likely the government will simply force doctors to provide care below cost.