More good stuff from Cochrane on health care

I recommend reading John Cochrane’s op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal, What to do when Obamacare unravels. It’s a great follow-up to my health care reforms.

Here are a couple quotes from Cochrane’s piece that addresses some common concerns over non-government medicine.

What about the homeless guy who has a heart attack? Yes, there must be private and government-provided charity care for the very poor. What if people don’t get enough checkups? Send them vouchers. To solve these problems we do not need a federal takeover of health care and insurance for you, me, and every American.

And (emphasis mine)…

No other country has a free health market, you may object. The rest of the world is closer to single payer, and spends less.

Sure. We can have a single government-run airline too. We can ban FedEx and UPS, and have a single-payer post office. We can have government-run telephones and TV. Thirty years ago every other country had all of these, and worthies said that markets couldn’t work for travel, package delivery, the “natural monopoly” of telephones and TV. Until we tried it. That the rest of the world spends less just shows how dysfunctional our current system is, not how a free market would work.

The mountain of disincentives

I recommend reading John Cochrane’s post about the job market and his thoughts regarding what a few other prominent economists believe are problems and solutions.

Here he addresses Alan Blinder’s prescription to give tax breaks to companies that expand payrolls (emphasis mine):

Is this really the right way to run a country? When “policy makers” want more employment, they slap on a complex, tax break on top of a mountain of disncentives. Presumably they then will remove this tax break, and pages 536,721 to 621,843 of the tax code describing it, despite the lobbying by large corporations who have figured out how to exploit it for billions of dollars, once the Brookings Institution decides that there is “enough” employment (!), and “policy-makers” no longer need to encourage it?
How are the existing hundreds of bits of social engineering in the tax code working out? Do we really need more of this?  Isn’t it time to return to a tax code that raises money for the government at minimal distortion?


And, great question, how are the existing hundreds of bits of social engineering in the tax code working out? 

Consider one of the most popular bits of social engineering: the mortgage interest deduction. How has that influenced home ownership rates? Does anybody know?

I read a lot of economics and I haven’t heard much about that.

Conventional wisdom is that it encourages home ownership by lowering its cost. But, this assumes home prices didn’t change because of the deduction or that renters don’t realize a similar benefit since their landlords deduct interest on their rental property loans.

Are we to believe that the stock market discounts future cash flows into stock prices, but the housing market doesn’t do the same for home prices?

Let me try are more concrete example. You want to purchase a certain new car and your choice is between two versions of the same model. They are exactly the same, except one thing: gas mileage. Version 1 gets 20 mpg and version 2 gets 30 mpg.

Would you be willing to pay more for version 2? Maybe. How much more? If you drive 10 thousand miles a year, version 2 will save you $500 a year. If you own the car for 5 years, that’s $2,500. You may not be willing to part with the full $2,500 of savings — after all, there’s some risk to that. Gas prices will fluctuate and your driving habits might change, but you would likely pay more.

That’s very similar thinking to how some, not all, home buyers factor in expected tax savings when buying a home.

Now You’re Talking

I like some of the latest batch posts that I’ve read on minimum wage.  Here’s a roundup.

1. In this post on the minimum wage on Cafe Hayek, Russ Roberts does a great job articulating a world more complex than any of our models can replicate. True. That’s one reason cost benefit analyses suck. Models are to complex systems as caricatures are to people. They’re nice to hang on the wall, but they don’t talk or anything.

Here’s a sample:

So that when legislation artificially raises price, the debate is over the impact on quantity–how many jobs will be lost (or gained if you’re on the other side.)

But price and quantity are not the only way market forces work. And they are certainly not the only attributes of a job. There is how hard you have to work, how many breaks you get, how much training or mentoring or kindness. What amenities are in the workplace–snack bar, vending machine, nicely decorated walls and so on. When the government requires that wages be higher than what they would otherwise be, that creates an increase in the number of people who would like to work and reduces the number of opportunities available.

2. The Grumpy Economist, John Cochrane, suggests that discussing the minimum wage is “fiddling while Rome burns”, even if the economic magic of raising the minimum doesn’t effect employment were true.

3. Kudos to Russ Roberts’ co-blogger on Cafe Hayek, Don Boudreaux, for his response to a colleague who questioned why he spent so much time writing about the minimum wage:

I protest the legislated minimum-wage because I have a visceral hostility to shabby economics.

Encountering arguments premised on the (typically unconscious) notion that most employers routinely sit on figurative piles of excess profits or returns that can be tapped into by government diktat (“Raise your workers’ wages!”) without any compensating adjustments or reactions by employers makes my head ache.  Encountering otherwise respectable economists performing rococo theorizing in their attempts to explain why unskilled human labor is somehow exempt from the simple application of the law of demand makes my head ache.

Encountering otherwise respectable economists who lend credence, usually unawares, to the person-in-the-street creationist superstition – a creationist superstition held by non-economists on the ideological spectrum ranging from the likes of Harold Meyerson to Bill O’Reilly – that prices, wages, employment conditions, and other economic phenomena are determined arbitrarily, and more or less consciously, by someone in power rather than by decentralized and largely spontaneous market, competitive forces makes my head ache.  Letting stand unchallenged this Meyerson-O’Reilly sense that, therefore, the only question is which powerful group of people will determine prices and wages – the government or the oligarchs? – makes my head ache.

Encountering claims that human welfare can be increased so easily and so surely by mere diktat makes my head ache.

Challenging such claims is the equivalent, for me, of swallowing two aspirin tablets.

Free Market Masterpiece

I agree with Don Boudreaux, of Cafe Hayek, that John Cochrane’s health care essay is a must read.

I first titled the post, “Health Care Masterpiece,” but then changed it to “Free Market Masterpiece”. In his essay, Cochrane does a masterful job of contrasting free market success stories to our government-restrained market for health care.

Here are a few snippets.

I bet you didn’t know:

About 70% of hospitals and 85% of health‐care employment is in non‐profits,whose legal and regulatory treatment protects much inefficiency from competition.

Maybe for‐profit companies pay too much attention to stock prices. But non‐profits can go on inefficiently forever, with no stockholders to complain.  The whole point of a non‐profit is to pursue goals other than economic efficiency.

Here he summarizes the competing goals of various government actions in health care:

…here we have the government forcing small size in order to boost competition with one hand, stopping entry to protect hospitals from competition with another, trying to force larger “networks” through “Affordable Care Organizations” to obtain the needed economies of scale with the third, but laws preserving doctor independence with the fourth.


On reflection, it’s amazing that computerizing medical records was part of the ACA and stimulus bills. Why in the world do we need a subsidy for this? My bank computerized records 20 years ago.

Why, when you go to the doctor, do you answer the same 20 questions over and over again, and what the heck are they doing trusting your memory to know what your medical history and list of medications are?

He answers that question (read it to find his answer) and OMG:

No, we did not get cheap and amazing cell phones by government ramping up the pressure on the 1960s AT&T. Southwest Airlines did not come about from effectiveness panels or an advisory board telling United and American (or TWA and Pan AM) how to reorganize operations. The mass of auto regulation did nothing to lower costs or induce efficient production by the big three.

When has this  ever worked?  The post office? Amtrak? The department of motor vehicles? Road construction? Military procurement? The TSA? Regulated utilities? European state‐run industries? The last 20 or so medical “cost control” ideas? The best example and worst performer of all,..wait for it…public schools?

I will post more quotes later. But, I also agree with Boudreaux that you should take the time to read the whole thing.

An esteemed finance professor agrees with me

There was an excellent opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal today from John Cochrane, finance prof at the University of Chicago.

In it, Cochrane repeats something I wrote in 2009 about the root cause of one key problem in health insurance: pre-existing condition restrictions.  This is Cochrane:

When the administration affirmed last month that church-affiliated employers must buy health insurance that covers birth control, the outcry was instant.  Critics complained that certain institutions should be exempt as a matter of religious freedom.

Critics are missing the larger point. Why should the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) decree that any of us must pay for “insurance” that covers contraceptives?

I put “insurance” in quotes for a reason. Insurance is supposed to mean a contract, by which a company pays for large, unanticipated expenses in return for a premium: expenses like your house burning down, your car getting stolen or a big medical bill.

Insurance is a bad idea for small, regular and predictable expenses.

How did we get to this point? It all leads back to the elephant in the room: the tax deductibility of employer-provided group insurance.

The pre-existing conditions crisis is largely a creature of tax law.  You don’t lose your car insurance when you change jobs.

Here’s what I wrote in 2009:

President Obama proposes to fix the problem of health insurance companies not providing coverage to people with pre-existing conditions by forcing insurance companies to cover these people.

What’s the root cause of this problem?

The tax advantage companies have in purchasing health insurance plans over individuals.  Without this tax advantage, the health insurance industry would look more like the auto and home insurance industries.  We’d buy policies directly from insurers instead of being covered by employers and stay with those companies much longer.

In the last fifteen years, I’ve changed my health insurance provider ten times, twice due to changing employment and the other times due to my company changing providers or me switching from one plan to another within the company.  Luckily I haven’t had a pre-existing condition to worry about.

I use the same auto and home insurance company I used fifteen years ago, same agent too.  My choice to stay with this company has been wholly independent of my employer.

I recommend reading the whole thing.

What you get when you cross crisp economic analysis with writers of How I Met Your Mother

Barney Stinson

"...the patient is having a heart attack. The doctors debating whether to give him a double espresso vs. a nip of brandy. And most likely, the espresso is decaf and the brandy watered"

This speech from John Cochrane.  Some of the riffs are Barney Stinson-esque and are right on point.

For example:

For nearly 100 years we have tried to stop runs [on banks] with government guarantees–deposit insurance, generous lender of last resort, and bailouts. That patch leads to huge moral hazard. Giving a banker a bailout guarantee is like giving a teenager keys to the car and a case of whisky. So, we appoint regulators who are supposed to stop the banks from taking risks, in a hopeless arms race against smart MBAs, lawyers and lobbyists who try to get around the regulation, and though we allow-nay, we encourage and subsidize–expansion of run-prone assets.


The “jobs” bill. Even if there were a ghost of a chance of building new roads and schools in less than two years, do we have 9% unemployment because we stopped spending on roads & schools? No. Do we have 9% unemployment because we fired lots of state workers? No.

Taxing the rich is the new hot idea. But do we have 9% unemployment-of anything but tax lawyers and lobbyists–because the capital gains rate is too low?

Here’s another one:

Of course in some sense we are still suffering the impact of the 2008 financial crisis. Reinhart and Rogoff are endlessly quoted that recessions following financial crises are longer. But why? That observation could just mean that policy responses to financial crises are particularly wrongheaded.