Apparently, Larry Summers wants to stake out that position. Pointer from Tyler Cowen.
I seriously doubt that medical services are the relevant margin for improving the health of the poor. Public health measures I can see. Otherwise, my bet is that economic growth and diffusion of knowledge are the relevant margins.
Of course, if Larry believes otherwise, he is always welcome to donate his own funds to relevant charitable causes. As long as he does not take my money to donate to his preferred causes.
Of course. Now some economists who believe in scarcity of resources might think the money is better spent giving other things to the poor (like money), but that is never really the choice. Free universal health care helps the poor verses giving them nothing, and as long as that is how the choice is framed the answer is easy. And the really smart economists know ideas like scarcity of resources is just part of the vast right wing plot to destroy America.
Yes, I get your meaning but it is not so easy. Remember when Obama said ACA was necessary to fix the economy? I do. He was lying bit let’s say someone believes it or that it is true. If it can fix it then it can break it. The poor are the most hurt (on certain margins) by a hurting economy.
It is also to frame the issue such that THE POOR and their supporters think the nothing can’t be a positive. Think “invade Syria or nothing” to make it easier to see how easy it should be to see.
There is a lot of low lying fruit when it comes to healthcare for the poor, and it is likely the only positive value added by healthcare at all, even if growth and diffusion are important. It is why public health is so beneficial. So let him take the money you will no doubt waste on it. It is a public service.
Except that is the opposite of what they are (going to) do. They are going to take more and waste moelre in ways that make the marginal dollar even more wasteful. Because that is what they have been doing for decades.
1). My best guess is that human capital development is the most important margin for improving the lives of the poor. They don’t have it, which has downstream effects (low-income/mobility, poor social network, etc).
2). I imagine the medical goods and services most useful to the poor are very basic ones, which makes the argument for universal healthcare curious. I doubt current market forces are unable to provide basic checkups and vaccines at low prices if left unrestricted. Instead they’re funneled through supply-side bottlenecks that force their delivery to be lumped together with more elaborate procedures, most of which flow to the elderly.
If you’re concerned about the poor’s access to healthcare I’d be rooting for more intervention by Walmart and less by congress.
Some counter intuitive relevant data
Does Canada’s publicly funded, single payer health care system deliver better health outcomes and distribute health resources more equitably than the multi-payer heavily private U.S. system? We show that the efficacy of health care systems cannot be usefully evaluated by comparisons of infant mortality and life expectancy. We analyze several alternative measures of health status using JCUSH (The Joint Canada/U.S. Survey of Health) and other surveys. We find a somewhat higher incidence of chronic health conditions in the U.S. than in Canada but somewhat greater U.S. access to treatment for these conditions. Moreover, a significantly higher percentage of U.S. women and men are screened for major forms of cancer. Although health status, measured in various ways is similar in both countries, mortality/incidence ratios for various cancers tend to be higher in Canada. The need to ration resources in Canada, where care is delivered “free”, ultimately leads to long waits. In the U.S., costs are more often a source of unmet needs. We also find that Canada has no more abolished the tendency for health status to improve with income than have other countries. Indeed, the health-income gradient is slightly steeper in Canada than it is in the U.S.
One point on the other side though, if the USA could by socializing, reduce medical costs by 50% to match Canada and the UK, some of the gains would presumably trickle down to the poor. I know that is a big! We in the USA also spend more on education and that is already socialized so I would bet against it but to fair they might have a point.
If we completely eliminated all private spending we would fully socialize and cut spending by 50%.