|
July 15, 2009
The Marginal Cost Of Life
In case you didn't catch Glenn Reynolds' must-read piece on health care this weekend: But there's another cost that isn't getting enough attention. That's the degree to which a bureaucratized healthcare system will squash medical innovation just as we reach a point where dramatic progress is possible. To see how important that is, I don't have to look any farther than my own family. There's a sense in the political class that health care costs are spiraling out of control and Something Must Be Done. But as Megan McArdle notes, pet health care costs are rising at almost exactly the same rate as human health care costs. That argues strongly that the main driver is people's increasing ability and willingness to pay for new treatments to extend their lives and the lives of those they love, number of legs notwithstanding. What's really spiraling out of control is medical progress -- and that's all to the good. Health care is a somewhat unique good, as without it the utility of everything else can decrease (in poor health), sometimes to zero (death), so until we achieve functional immortality there's really no limit on potential demand for products and treatments that make us live longer, healthier lives. The notion we must limit health care in the long run because we can't afford it is somewhat flawed. Consider this: at 3% growth, GDP per capita will be around $175,000 by 2059 versus about $40,000 today (yes, even adjusted for inflation). There's no reason we couldn't spend up to 90% of that new $135,000 on health care, as opposed to other luxuries that only provide utility as long as you're healthy and alive; in fact, it would be entirely rational to do so. posted by Dave on 07.15.09 at 11:27 AM
Comments
When attacking Big Pharma was all the rage, I used to egg them on. "Yeah, those bastids have had a large hand in increasing life expectancy from around 63 to around 70 over the last 30 years and for that, they can never be forgiven!" But then, I'm kind of a jerk. Veeshir · July 15, 2009 12:48 PM Let's do some math. Say GDP per capita is growing at 3% per year and we spend 10% of current GDP one medical care. We decide as a society that we want to dedicate 1% of future growth to better health care and improved medical science. With enough years and enough growth, health care approaches 1/3 of GDP! This is substainable! - so long as GDP/per capita grows and the allocation of new resources stands. What the Democrats are trying to do is divert some of that desired public resource allocation to government purposes, including buying votes from those who don't contribute their share to medical care now. Whitehall · July 15, 2009 01:27 PM This is a rare issue where it is more the public's fault rather than the government's. GK · July 15, 2009 03:05 PM Many of the arguments about Healthcare costs fail because people are making what in philosophy is called a category error. You don’t go out and buy X units of healthcare, you buy an MRI scan or a certain drug. It would be like looking at the growing percent of GDP we spend on entertainment and conclude that entertainment spending is out of control. The cost of almost any particular medical good has been falling over time, not rising. We are simply consuming more of them. David Young · July 15, 2009 07:59 PM Chris Dodd...resign NOW J. Galt · July 15, 2009 09:56 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
July 2009
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
July 2009
June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
It happens to us all
To all commenters: Your words are not junk. If MADD has run out of things to do, I'd like to help! Baby lies can be good! The Marginal Cost Of Life India or China? Free Health Care Climate Models Are Not So Hot Good news! From China! Palin Climate Change
Links
Site Credits
|
|
This is an excellent argument (since I've been making it myself.) I especially like the point you make about how we are deciding to spend our marginal GDP growth. The statistics then show an increasing PERCENTAGE of GDP going to health care. Would we prefer it when to video games instead?
In many earlier societies (and some current ones) any economic growth went into military (Wilhelmian Germany?) which meant problems for the neighbors. We have peace following the Cold War to blame partially.