"Medicare Administrative Costs Are Higher, Not Lower, Than for Private Insurance"

In the coming war over U.S. health care reform, you will hear--often--how much more efficient government-financed health care, particularly Medicare, is.

Don't believe the hype.

(Link via my older daughter.)

Comments

[James]

or perhaps believe it. Yours is a less than compelling argument

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/administrative-costs/

[Robert A. Book]

(I'm the author of article linked above.)

If you're going to read Krugman's post on my article, please also read my explanation of why he doesn't refute actually my original point.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/07/06/medicare-administrative-costs-and-paul-krugman%E2%80%99s-propaganda-shop

The fact that Krugman is reduced to ad-hominem-like attacks on my employer is further evidence that he can't refute my article based on the facts.

Thanks for the link!

[kyle8]

More to the point, If you are going to use Krugman for any reference you must first explain away his insanity.

[Jim Glass]

Don't forget Medicaid costs. Medicaid is a single-payer government health plan with "low adminstrative cost" too ...

With the reported result of fully 40% of claims cost going to fraud, graft, and "legal graft" in both California and New York. (Who knows about in between?) Yes, 40%!

("Legal graft" being Tammany's famous term for graft that's not illegal because we write the law that way.)

http://www.scrivener.net/2008/08/government-run-health-care-in-action.html

Before we put our belief in the superior efficiency of politician-managed health care, wouldn't we want to see them knock this graft level down to below, say 30%?