Fish, Barrel

"Atrios tries to tell us choice and competition are not good for health care consumers."

But they're not good in all cases. If you're in the ambulance after your [FILL IN EMERGENCY HERE], do you want to be handed a phone-book sized set of cost and plan options that you have to study before you'll be taken to an ER?

Choice and competition are good in some areas of health care. But only blind ideology would say that they're always good in every medical situation.

I'd also note that the Republican Medicare legislation made it illegal for the government to use its clout with vast numbers of people signed up for plans to negotiate prices with drug companies, by the way. So much for the value of competition, there.

Having now looked at what Atrios said, I'm curious what specifically you disagree with, as regards actual citable facts and numbers. Ditto re Ezra's more grounded post, which I see makes the same point I just did, though I'd look to his thousand or so more detailed posts on health care policy to really debate the issue.

Since Atrios isn't citing any actual facts or numbers I'll have difficulty arguing with any.

But Ezra seems to be in favor of competition on an institutional level, and Atrios takes the opportunity to bad mouth consumer choice - not really the same thing.

As for your ambulance example, as we're talking about insurance coverage, the choices would be made long before the event. The current system leaves nearly all the choices at the institutional level. The vast majority of people have to take whatever plan their employer or the government picks for them.

Oh, you don't expect me to defend any of the recent Republican schemes, do you?

"Oh, you don't expect me to defend any of the recent Republican schemes, do you?"

No. But I see what you mean about your comment spam.

[some obnoxious spam deleted in this thread, as in several others]