rationing

Humph.

Some people just won’t stop. Now it’s OK for an average peson to get into an argument about health care reform and make claims that a government plan will introduce rationing. But it absolutely not OK for a Harvard professor of economics and former advisor to Presidents to do so.

“Repeat after me: all economic systems ration. The only possible debate we can have about rationing is, therefore, what kind of rationing we would prefer.”

So I get really annoyed when Martin Felstein writes this absurd article for the Wall Street Journal. I give the WSJ itself a pass on the basis that its editorial staff don’t know any better, and they simply shill for the Republicans.

But Feldstein?

He should know better. It makes me wonder what he actually teaches.

I have had my say on this many times, most recently here. For those of you who want to dig deeper go to Professor Mark Thoma’s blog and get a proper education.

For those who may be sending their children to Harvard: make sure you avoid Martin Feldstein’s classes.

No wonder few people have a clue what to think.

Poor people and, in this economy, unemployed people, do not ‘prefer’ not to buy insurance or health care services: they cannot afford them. Choice and affordability are not the same thing. Only a dyed in the wool right wing neo-classical economist would confuse affordability with choice. Even then they wouldn’t shouldn’t mislead readers into thinking that a free market does not ration when rationing is its exact reason for being. And contrary to Felstein’s apparent belief reducing the number of high cost/low effectiveness procedures makes very sound economic sense. Then again sense doesn’t seem to motivate Feldstein much in this case.

This really is embarrassing for the Harvard economics faculty. It’s also ridiculous that the rationing canard keeps finding its way into print in serious, or ostensibly serious, media outlets.

Repeat after me: all economic systems ration. The only possible debate we can have about rationing is, therefore, what kind of rationing we would prefer.

Duh!