June 5, 2007 4:01
Ezra, Dick. Dick, Ezra. Now talk amongst yourselves
I don't want to spend my day debating health care with Dick Armey, especially since, as noted previously, I don't really know what I'm talking about. So I'll just let young Klein the ever-popular young collectivist E. Klein do the hard work on Armey's claim that "health care regulations leave us worse off by an amount equal to 11 percent of health spending."
There are two replies to this question. The first is which regulations, kemosabe? Among the regulations you're paying for are those that ensure purity in medications, sanitary conditions in hospitals, and standards in treatment. So if we're going to play the cutting game, I'd like a list of what regulations Armey plans to cut, and how much each one of them costs. And I'd like it stat. And maybe, while we're at it, a reference for that 11 percent figure, as a quick search turned up no similar data.
What I do have a reference for are private vs. public administrative costs. Studies have found that overhead in the private insurance system -- little things like underwriting, and trying to deny you coverage, and advertising -- account for up to 31 percent of US health care spending. If we had a Canadian style system, we would've saved $209 billion in 1999 -- far more than Armey's nameless "regulations" are costing us. And I'd take some sanitation regulations over the claims department at my insurer anyday. Meanwhile, here's a fun fact -- government systems hold down bureaucracy more effectively than private system. The study found that "between 1969 and 1999, administrative and clerical personnel in the United States grew from 18.2 percent to 27.3 percent of the health work force. In Canada, those personnel grew from 16 percent in 1971 to 19.1 percent in 1996." Armey seems unconcerned by these costs.
Update: Many thanks to Fred Jones, who in the comments to my earlier post has given me a name for Ezra Klein that I think I can stick with (see above).
About The Curious Capitalist
Justin Fox is TIME's business and economics columnist. This is his blog. About the Authors
Barbara Kiviat just celebrated her 5-year anniversary covering business and economics for TIME magazine. About the Authors
Recent Posts
The Curious Capitalist Archives
Blog Roll
- Going Private
- Calculated Risk
- Nicholas Carr
- Brad DeLong
- Econbrowser
- Econlog
- John Gapper
- Herb Greenberg
- Paul Kedrosky
- Ezra Klein
- Adam Lashinsky
- Michael Mandel
- Greg Mankiw
- Marginal Revolution
- Matt McAlister
- Megan McArdle
- Mike Moffatt
- Floyd Norris
- Roger Parloff
- James Pethokoukis
- Barry Ritholtz
- Felix Salmon
- Mark Thoma
- Amit Varma

Reader Comments (5)
Another great post Justin...keep at it...and throw some hard numbers in too... Actually, I'd like to read a consideration on the economic impact for implementing a system like Canada's. Say for example the current work force in the health care system, how would they be impacted in a transition if the US were to switch systems (oh how I wish)?.
That's an argument Dick and his ilk would use to really scare the crap out of the electorate: 'OMG, you'd all be out of work, all standing in soup lines with no hope at all.' Thoughts?
Posted by YMM | June 5, 2007 4:19 PM
"I don't want to spend my day debating health care with Dick Armey, especially since, as noted previously, I don't really know what I'm talking about. "
You don't really need to know that much about health care to know that Armey is full of it. And I still waiting for you, or Klein, or Carney or ANYONE to demand that Armey provide a cite for his '11% of health care costs go to regulations" thing...
Posted by p_lukasiak | June 5, 2007 6:31 PM
Just call him "Strelnikov"!
Posted by Brad DeLong | June 5, 2007 7:23 PM
Here's the correct link for your quote from Klein:
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=06&year=2007&base_name=post_3874#016790
I think, if anything, Klein is too generous to Armey. There is no conceivable way that Armey's 11% claim makes sense, at least not in his second formulation that "For every $100 Americans spend on health care, we pay $11 to the regulator." As I commented last time, at $2 trillion a year in health care costs, that would be more that $200 billion a year that Americans are paying to "the regulator". Or in other words almost 2% of GDP. Or about 40% of non-defense discretionary federal spending. There just isn't any regulator in the US whose budget is anything approaching that. E.g. the FDA's budget is roughly a factor of 100 less.
Posted by Crust | June 6, 2007 1:36 PM
Thanks, Crust. I fixed the link.
Posted by Justin Fox | June 6, 2007 2:05 PM