It's all about the rents, part one million and five
But the shape of the problem is very simple and it looks like this:
1. The public sector has assumed responsibility for financing the health care of old people.*
2. The cost of health care relative to the rest of the economy is rising.
3. The proportion of old people relative to the rest of the population is rising.
This trend bodes ill for our [who's?] fiscal future. And thinking about solving it is enough to make one’s head hurt. As we saw during the debate over the Affordable Care Act, it’s very difficult to pass measures that reduce the incomes of doctors, the profits of medical device makers, the profits of pharmaceutical firms, or the incomes of hospitals And yet it’s difficult to see how you could reduce health care without reducing the revenue flows that go to medical professionals and the firms that employ them. It’s a big problem [sighs].
Gee, in Matt's list of people and institutions whose incomes would be reduced by real health care reform (e.g., single payer), do you notice one that's missing?
Like the health insurance companies? Who take thirty cents of every health care dollar? If Versailles insists on spending $350 billion dollars a year, at least, on rent-seeking health insurance companies who add nothing of value to any of their transactions, of course we're going to have fiscal issues -- even accepting the deficit terrorist framework, which I don't. It really is "very simple"!
Who was it who said that evil was a failure of the imagination?
Oh, and I love the headline:
The Unavoidability of Long-Term Austerity
It's not going to be unavailable for you, now is it, Matt boy?
NOTE * I love the locution "old people." Don't you?