Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 14:20:37 EDT
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush/Quayle's Health Plan -- vouchers?
 <1992Sep14.211721.10171@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
 <92258.191030DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <1992Sep15.165417.22620@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>

In article <1992Sep15.165417.22620@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>,
andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) says:
>
>In article <92258.191030DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>In article <1992Sep14.211721.10171@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) says:
>>>>And I don't disagree.  Read what I've written.  My argument is that a
>>>>policy that tries to make people pay the costs of their behavior will
>>>>work better if it puts the future costs of needed health care into the
>>>>the product price, rather than into the health insurance price.
>>>
>>>And, I've shown that that can't be done; so much for "work better".
>>>Taxes are avoidable; ignoring that is policy-suicide.
>>
>>No, you haven't "shown that that can't be done." (At least I haven't seen
>>any logical deductive proofs, or even very convincing arguments that it can't
>>be done.)  Avoiding taxes costs time and money as well.  Even if avoidance
>>occurs for some people, you have raised the direct and indirect costs of the
>>good/behavior, which is the goal.
>
>Shea's goals keep changing.  He insisted that his goal was to make
>people pay for the costs of their choices, now he's satisfied if he
>can increase their costs somewhat, which is a very different thing.

My goal has always been the same, to create a better health care
system, which will admittedly be imperfect.  I'm willing to admit that
in the real world it is impossible to create a system in which people
pay for the full costs of all behavior.  It appears to me that you think
such a system can be constructed, and criticize any system that does
not meet this unattainable goal.



>Tax-avoidance isn't a logical fact, it is an empirical one.  If Shea
>can't see it happening ....  Since he can't see that some health costs
>come from things not associated with single goods or services, that
>isn't surprising.


Re: the rest of your comments on my post.  I couldn't say any better
than it was said earlier this year by Evans and Barer:

"Attempts to create a more efficient "market-based" system satisfacotry
to the American public have been tried for more than a decade and so far
have clearly failed.  Their advocates presumably feel that the failure is
one of application, not of possibility, and that continued effort along these
lines is justified.  But their grounds for this conclusion seem only to be
they are able to imagine a hypothetical system they believe would be
superior to any presently in existence.....Again, faith triumphs over
experience, imagination over reality."

Our discussion doesn't really seem to be heading anywhere interesting,
since we have some basic differences about the application of economic
theory to political life.  I believe that it's only under highly
restrictive assumptions that one can show the price system even leads
to an efficient allocation.  You appear to disagree.  I believe that
many of those assumptions are violated in health care markets.  You
appear to disagree.  I believe that there are political and economic
goals other than cost-minimization which should be valued.  You appear
to disagree.  If I'm mistaken in stating your views, please correct me.
If you think we'll ever make any thing other than minor progress in this
debate, feel free to explain where.  As it is, you seem to be content in
pointing out that my systems are not perfect, which I think is a standard
that can't be used in creating policy.  Your own arguments in support of
your positions are so sketchy, that I have little idea what sort of
health care policy you would favor.


Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5009 alt.politics.clinton:5281 alt.politics.perot:1468 rec.humor:28578 talk.bizarre:30029 talk.politics.misc:45280 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5350