I’m going to be writing a bit more for FDL over the next while and one of the themes I want to develop is about how to create and recognize good policy.
Good policy is pretty easy to create, and it’s also easy to recognize, but very few people know how to do either, because we so rarely see good policy in the real world. Almost every policy which comes out of Washington, and most other capitals, is sold as doing one thing, but is actually written and designed to serve the interests of those players which have bought various politicians. So, as a result you wind up with "stimulus" bills which don’t include food stamps and unemployment benefits or you wind up with tax "reform" which makes the tax code more complicated and gives most of the tax cuts to the rich. In fact, it’s very rare that any major bill either does what it’s supposed to (No Child Left Behind, for example, has almost certainly done more harm to American education than good) or if it does, that it does it in a way that is efficient and effective. Medicare drug benefits, which were designed to make drug and insurance companies money, not to deliver cheap drugs to Americans, are an excellent example.
Each post in this series will discuss one rule for judging or creating policy. We’ll start with the simplest rule of all:
Don’t Reinvent the Wheel
Sometimes another country, or a state or city, has already solved the problem, or has solved a large chunk of it. The prototypical example of this is health care. Every other modern (and some 3rd world) country in the world has universal, usually single payor, healthcare. Most of those systems produce as good or better results than the US on almost all metrics.
And these countries pay, total, about two-thirds of what Americans pay per person, for health care that covers everyone. A side effect is that GM and Ford price in $1,500 of insurance costs into every car, while Toyota avoids that expense, and continues to eat Detroit’s lunch. Meanwhile, 50% of all bankruptcies in America are caused by health care costs. There is virtually no downside to universal healthcare, even for the very rich (the very rich will always have private clinics. They did even in the USSR.) Every health expert who isn’t paid not to know this, knows that universal care is cheaper, and better.
We know it works, because it has worked in every 1st world nation which has tried it. The reason the US does not have universal healthcare, ironically, is the huge amount of money that could be saved—5.3% of the US’s total GDP. That’s a heck of a lot of money, and a lot of people are getting very rich off of it. And those who make a killing use the money to buy lobbyists and politicians and make sure that 50 million Americans don’t have insurance, another 20 million or so are underinsured, that 50% of all bankruptcies are caused by health expenses, and that US healthcare metrics continue to lag other first world countries. They stop real reform because the pain and suffering and financial devastation of all those millions of Americans is earning them a lot of money. Making a "killing" isn’t exactly a metaphor when it comes to US healthcare.
So we know one big, simple way to fix US healthcare and it doesn’t require reinventing the wheel, but simply learning from what others have done.
But healthcare isn’t the only place where this works—one could, for example, look to how other countries handle, say, drug use, and learn some lessons. Or look to their prisons. Or figure out how much smaller countries than the US are able to have effective militaries without spending 50% of the world’s military budget.
This is simple stuff, the basic rule is familiar to anyone who’s ever wanted to learn how to do something and gone to find out how other people do it, looking in particular at the people who are best, then copying what they do and making minor adaptations to your own situation. When I want to learn how to cook something I’ve never cooked, I look it up. When I want to buy a new car, I look up reviews. When I want to build something, I find out how others who have built something similar did it.
So the first rule of making, and recognizing, good policy is just common sense. Learn from others.
Don’t reinvent the wheel.
Related posts:
- Health Care: Pete King is Out of Touch with Long Island, New York, and America
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes T. R. Reid, The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care
- America Doesn’t Ration Care – Except to Those Who Don’t Have Insurance
- The Max Tax: Baucus Plan Fails to Control Growth of Insurance Premiums
- Baucus Health Care Bill: In a Word, Awful





Spotlight







Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

I look forward to reading the post — always informative, Ian.
Hubris seems to get in the way of American leaders when it comes to learning from others. I’m hopeful that we can get some rational leaders into office this time…..president AND enough reasonable congresscritters so that we can finally get something done about issues such as healthcare.
Hey Ian,
There’s good news!
But universal single-payer health care would put the insurance companies and the health care industry out of business! Or at least cause them to make less money. How could that be good in this Ideal Capitalist Society?
most eXcellent news!
Common sense. What a novel idea.
and I can’t for the life of me figure out why big business isn’t on board
the only industry that suffers is the health care provision industry, everyone else gains, big business should get on board it will increase their bottom line
and the answer to anyone who claims it’s “socialism”, it is not, anyone who wants to use private health care can and should, in addition, that private health care will cost less simply because it has to compete with single payer
here’s what the progressives need to do;
point out that “the free market” for “the commons” does not work, expenses are always higher when private industry provides the service all of us need, this is becaue their model is not based on expense it is based on what people will pay where government service, even with abuses is based on cost
Is it a Chamber of Commerce thing? Where medical industry holds other industries up for ransom?
Govt provided medical care also involves price controls. Perhaps other industries think it’s the camel’s nose under the tent.
KISS,
A method I learned long ago. “Keep it simple, Stupid”
We can change policy simply and economically if only we stop believing the Bullshit reasons not to.
Thanks for this Ian
((( Ian )))
Barack said Elizabeth Edwards is going to help him design his Health Care Reform. Does this mean he is going for single payor in one shot or too early to tell ?
Now I just love the idea of EE being involved!
Good for you, Ian. Glad you’ll be around more.
Imagine if architects started from scratch…
Me too, it also (hopefully) means that JRE will play a central role in BO’s cabinet or perhaps be the Veep.
Edwards & Obama on medical care are oil & water. Obama’s advisors want “incentives” for peole to provide it for themselves. His plan is more conservative than Hillary’s would have been and more complicated than the current system.
The ones I know do tend to scratch a lot … *g*
Ezekiel Emmanuel and brothers was on Charlie Rose last night. Zeke has a book about universal health care. Say whatever about Rahm, the brothers were quite interesting — and funny.
“were” – preview is my friend
I can think of a million
lobbyistscontributors who might be able to help Obama see things in an Edwards light on this issue. (Maybe, just maybe)Off to have dinner with friends. With that last grammatical gaffe, I hope the crow comes well sauced.
Later.
I thought Obama’s was easier to implement but I haven’t studied it as in depth as more learned folks.
I’m a complete cynic on “contributors.” I think they almost always get what they want & it isn’t universal medical care. I didn’t see Edwards getting lobbiests’ support.
Luv it, Ian. Can’t wait. Over at GRITtv we’re on the same beat when it comes to looking at what’s out there that works (as well as all the other dreck.) This Thursday, we’ll be hosting a whole panel of local legislators from the Progressive States Network conference happening this week in New York. Legislators from some pretty unlikely places are getting some pretty good policy passed. We’ll be talking to folks from Texas, Maine and Minnesota. Hope you’ll check it out!!!
It might be easier to implement (like Iraq was easy to invade), but all the complications come after that. The “easy implementation” stems from the fact that it is more conservative and might run into less of a headwind from Rs. But I wouldn’t count on that either. The Rs will be complete obstructionists in an Obama Administration.
I will, thanks!
Great news, Ian. I am looking forward to your posts.
What would you use as a comeback to those who say they don’t want their taxes going up to pay for universal healthcare? I always imagined that what we pay in premiums now is higher than what we would, indivudualy, pay in taxes. Am I off base?
& Ian,
Evidence about what works is anathema to the Rs. They are ideologues and will not allow evidence to get in the way of their economic assertions. They are the economist analogues to the creationists.
Not invented here, yuck!
USA! USA! USA!
Yeah, it sounds great. We need change all the way through the party, not just at the Federal level.
I just finished watching my first episode *red faced* GRITtv is great! More Ian, now GRITtv,and you’re talking to people down here in Texas! I’m starting to get excited about this new media thing.
No expert here, but I think about avian flu and freak out about NOT having universal health care. Any communicable disease…
Hi nonplussed, did you see the LTE yesterday (day before?) in our local rag where some wingnut was saying that if we had universal healthcare like Canada, Ted Kennedy would have had to wait 6 months for treatment?
Got me to checking Snopes.com. Completely false, they say about a week for cancer treatments.
My comback is that in the U.S. medical care is 1-1/2 times as expensive per capita than in the next most expensive countries, and the “health” outcomes are worse (shorter longevity, higher infant mortality, etc.) And 50 million are at the mercy of hospital emergency rooms, if there’s even one that will take them in. The standard comeback is that people have to wait longer in other countries, to which I point out that everyone has to wait weeks for an apt in the U.S. if it’s not an emergeny, and that if a real study were done, I doubt that the “wait is longer” would stand up to evidence. (There’s that nasty evidence word is again.) They look at me as if I were from Mars. Even low income people. The brainwashing against universal medical care in this country is extreme.
Ian, Did you rea this today? Thoughts? lipstick on a pig?
Regulators move to curb oil speculation, but is it enough?
WASHINGTON — The chief federal regulator of U.S. oil contract trades on Tuesday announced steps to restrain price manipulation and excessive speculation that many experts believe are driving up gasoline prices.
Critics complained that Tuesday’s action, while welcome, should have come months ago.
“Frankly they’ve waited far too long,” said Mark Cooper, director of research for the Consumer Federation of America, a consumer advocacy group.
Testifying before the Senate Agriculture Committee Tuesday, Cooper said that the rise in oil prices – about 39 percent this year alone – means that speculators are costing American consumers an estimated $1,500 per family in additional spending annually on gasoline.
Well, I suspect that in an epidemic the govt would step in.
Oh, great — the Julie-Gerberding-destroyed CDC to the rescue!
yeah- one could look to the political systems of other countries and see if they have corrupt two party duopolies in control, and the nominal ‘left’ opposition has conniptions at the notion of withdrawing support from the complicit ‘opposition’.
ECAHN, that infant mortality issue really steams me. We are truly 3rd world in that regard. (And a few others.)
The brainwashing, too. Folks believe what they want to believe. Teh Dumbing Down is working.
Yeah, but at what location and through what system? I can tell you that when we had the SoCal fires last fall, we had after-the-fact help which turned out to be silly.
Thank doG my husband got a great new job where he can cover my unemployed ass for real cheap. (And his is covered 100%.)
Yes, and consider having people like that in charge of your medical care more fundamentally. That’s what the left never considers in these discusssions. Who wants W to make medical decisions for them?
haven’t they fired her yet?
Oh, that scares the hell out of me!
Good for you guys. :)
If not, her days are numbered. Hope she put her resume out there, I doubt she’ll have a yob after January 20.
: )
W isn’t going to make medical decisions for me, ever.
This is like saying, “Love the DMV? Then you’ll love socialized medicine!”
It makes no sense. There won’t be any central agency delivering healthcare under single payer — just one agency PAYING for it.
The payer gets to decide. And if you think that won’t happen, you haven’t been living in the U.S. in past 7+ years.
and they can toss out the arrogant prig Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach, urologist, the piss poor head of the FDA while they’re at it.
I look forward to a complete and total purge.
Why was the new triangular wheel such an improvement over the original style square wheel?
One less bump.
I wrote him a response in the comments. Not much use that place is dominate by conservative trolls. Even so I go there and post under my real name. They all know who I am anyway since I write all those Letters to the Ed.
Why reinvent the wheel? Total agreement here. Might one of your posts be how it works for Northern European countries. Break it down into how the costs are covered, by whom and how the serices are provided.
Why would a nurse of med tech earn less than in a for profit system? Logic has it that the profit is an added cost of doing business eliminated in the single payer system? Any comments?
first of all, it’s not socialized medicine, that’s propaganda, you can still get any health care you choose and in fact, the health care you do choose will cost less becuase of single payer
second, I don’t know where you are from but the dmv is a pleasure and I certainly wouldn’t like to pay five times the price for a service that wouldn’t be nearly as good
as far as prive controls, it only involves price controls for those their own service, it does not involve price controls for people like yourself who would rather pay into the private health care system
this is no lose for everyone but those people making billion dollar parachutes at the expense of the rest of us
oh, it’s also a lose situation for people who want health care to cost as much as possible even in their private health care opt out, those people also lose in single payer
The portion of revenues that goes to profits depends on the shape of the supply & demand curve. Medical industry’s market power stems from the knowledge gap between the buyer & seller, and the fact that the customer is vulnerable, making the demand curve inelsatic wrt price. Therefore the industry earns above average profits but also includes much greater inefficiency. So profits don’t look as high as they would be if the industry handled costs as if they were in a competitive industry.
I’ve seen them in the dead tree version, although not lately. You give good letter! Do you get alot of flame?
ECahn – wouldn’t universal health care actually be GOOD for the medical sector, because more people would be getting more services? What am I missing here?
studies have been done and there is evidence of longer wait times (although iirc that is primarily for nonurgent care). imo, the important thing to note is that wait times are only one cause of unmet health care needs and it can not be evaluated in a vacuum.
here is one example study from PNHP (scroll down to “Despite spending far less per capita for health care, Canadians are healthier and have better measures of access to health care than Americans.”)
this is just one report i was able to find quickly….
i think you’re missing the market distorting impact of our fucked up IP and patent law.
Poll in the Bay area 75% want universal health care per report on the local ABC station. Done by Gallop!
Shorter wait times for something you can’t afford….
Think about the industry as an oligopoly. (I cann it the Mafia of the Intelligentsia because the customers are vulnerable.) The executives of the industry have absolutely no incentive to provide services. The only thing in their benefit is to charge high prices and play in their own sandbox, like expensive high-tech procedures that benefit primarily those who can afford to pay. The industry is exactly what you would expect given it’s structure. Luxury care for the rich and no care for the poor.
The reason it took so long for this to happen is because, unlike more standard historical oligopolies, there was originally not a small number of providers, so they had to figure out how much market power they had thru trial & error. That ook a long time.
Wait times? Tried to get an appointment with a doctor lately? I need to see a gastro-enterologist. Earliest available appointment? Three months from now.
My excellent orthopedic surgeon is booked six months out.
No one will ever convince me that a single-payer system will be worse.
Here is the link to the online story.
Speaking of inelsatic demand curves, I’d bet that a list of those industries would be fairly similiar to the list of ripoff industries. Oil comes to mind. Lack of suitable substitutes. Legal services for another. Laws against unlicensed practice.
Not missing it. It’s also part of the problem, but the basic issue is the knowledge gap. The patent problem is also an outgrow of this. Keeping monopoly control on knowledge. In Shumpeter, according to a book I read recently, “creative distruction” does not require monopoly rewards even at the beginning. If the innovation is any good, the market reward should be sufficient.
Breaking NEWS on KO “Bush to ask congress to lift offshore drilling ban” What an asshole he wants to give big oil more money…. don’t they have enough gouging the public already for oil products!
I am suspicious on studies of wait times for the U.S. given the incentives to underreport. On my yesterday’s docs appt, the office never responded to my msg to the answering service, so I had to keep calling until I got the office itself. It took a week to get the appt, but the office would report 2 days.
RE: wait times – a lot of the problem with wait times here has to do not with the system as such – ie who pays for services – but rather a shortage of health practitioners. And this problem is international in scope – and about to get worse.
I don’t want no stinkin’ socialized medical care…I don’t want to pay no taxes to the government….
Maybe I can’t afford no health care…but I sure as hell, don’t want someone thinkin’ I’m takin’ handouts from the government….what…d’ya think I wanna be on welfare…hayell no….that’s for poor people who don’t have a job.
btw, David’s upstairs
How can there be a shortage when we can just steal them away from 3d world countries?
I also think that the expertise of some medical personnel is underutilized because of turf issues between disciplines. I’d like to see, for example, pharmacists being able to do some prescribing for routine things – similar to what happens in some European countries. Or nurse-practitioners doing routine checkups instead of tying up the time of the high-priced help.
While you are here reading this fine post by Ian don’t forget to Digg it! Ian will appreciate so will Jane and all the rest of the front pagers!
it’s not a monopoly on knowledge – it’s a monopoly on the right to use knowledge.
… i’m only saying this for the pharmaceutical market – i don’t know anything about any other. this will, i hope, be an interesting topic for future discussion… but there is new fisa thread and i have a STRONG disagreement with david’s post.
p.s. i have horrible wait times too.
Don’t know about you, but we don’t do a very good job of integrating foreign-trained doctors into the system. A lot of them end up not getting credentials recognized and being seriously under-employed. Also language can be an issue – as well as cultural expectations about how medicine is practices.
nor can it possibly be worse since you would still be able to use the private sector just as if there were no single payer
this is not “one OR the other”, it’s “whichever you want”
simple stuff here
in point of fact, single payer if done right IS the “free market”
the market will develope just as if there were no single payer, it will be more competitive and there might even be more providers since smaller businesses will thrive due to better service
this is win win win for consumers, it’s win for those who want to take advantage of single payer will be able to, those people whow want a more intimate relationship will be able to as well
off topic but this is really good news;
I don’t know if anyone caught this or if it was mentioned here, I just read it over at think progress and it is ECELLANT;
BINGO!
Thanks for that, nahant!
dugg.
Ian Welsh, your input is sound and welcome.
That said, Watch Your Back.
Those profiting 5.3% of US GNP are incentiveized to maintain status quo. (Bushism mine).
Looking forward to your future posts.
Done.
Thanks for the link.
Great post Ian.
This is no longer self-evident. If it was we’d be pumping oil from Iraq among a whole lot of other things. Eventually the Darwinian imperative will overcome any barrier but meanwhile enjoy the dot.com bubble, the housing bubble, the commodities bubble as small groups securitise, finacialise and just, in general, loot their way to enormous fortunes while government’s everywhere jump on the delusional and fictitious ‘Free Market’ train to no where.
Enjoy the ride.
Sorry I missed this, some belated answers in EPU land
Petro: too early to tell. I do have some hopes, because I think Elizabeth is very sincere, and given her personal health situation I don’t think she has the time or energy to play political games if Obama isn’t really serious about moving to a universal system. Mind you, the Edwards/Clinton plans weren’t ideal, they were both way overcomplicated by the desire not to go to single payor but to have the benefits of single payor. Nonetheless, both were a big step up from the current situation assuming they were done right. Done wrong, the mandates could make them into a nightmare.
Will do, thanks Laura. I rarely notice what’s happening at the State level, which is something I should rectify.
The combination of what you pay in premiums, taxes and reduced wages is certainly more than what you would pay under a well done single payor system.
Here’s the oddity, the US government pays as much per capita as many other countries on health care. US citizens are already paying most of the taxes necessary for single payor without getting it. They pay more, and get less, because the system is so inefficient.
Most people would wind up, at the end of the day, with more money in pocket after medical expenses (whether tax or premium) in a single payor system. That’s simply a function of the average cost being 1/3 less.
Hadn’t seen that. A good first step. Insufficient. The incentives need to drive money somewhere else (there needs to be a place to put all this money with better returns) or you need to tax the tar out of them (which requires aid from a number of other countries, who might, mind you, be willing to cooperate).
Tobin on currency and derivatives is the minimum necessary step, I think, though there are some other ways to do the same things. The Fed could also just pull the plug on it, but that would bring a bunch of brokerage firms and banks down — and not just in the US.
Canada has worse wait times, or did (it’s been improving and I think the data is showing the gap is a lot narrower) but some other universal systems don’t have worse wait times – and still cost 2/3rds as much. Canada isn’t the gold standard, perhaps silver, though there are advantages to the Canadian system as applied to the US because of its very decentralized nature.
Greetings Ian-I, too, look forward to your posts although we disagree profoundly. You think capitalism can be fixed. I don’t. The US can’t (won’t) learn from others because it is more committed to individualism than anyone else. The problem is the balance to be struck between individual and group. Most nations see a group interest to be protected at least some time. In the US anything the individual does to make a buck goes.
Just as conservation doesn’t fly well because there’s little money in it (Our automobile producers produced gas guzzlers long after it made no sense because there was more money in them. They would still be doing so if our administration didn’t screw things up so the price of oil went through the roof). We didn’t even demand greater fuel efficiency because inefficiency creates more livlihoods. We won’t get more efficient health care for the same reason.
beth meacham wrote: “How could that be good in this Ideal Capitalist Society?”
Simple answer: Insurance companies may not benefit but by controlling healthcare spending (through single payer system), capital that would have been consumed in the (inefficient) health care system would be available for other investments.
-briber