1. Brian W. Says:
   August 7th, 2009 at 9:29 am

   The article about the California health insurance exchange is a good example of how government policy tends to distort normal, productive markets. Left alone, the laws of economics will work to meet consumer demands with producer supplies. Even with the creation of the California exchange, the market worked around the government policy to meet the demand for affordable health insurance.

2. Larry C. Says:
   August 7th, 2009 at 10:43 am

   I wonder about the rest of the story on Parkland. Do you suppose they are going to replace McDonalds with Crispy Creme donuts.

3. Bart Ingles Says:
   August 7th, 2009 at 12:36 pm

   “Health Insurance Exchanges don’t work unless participation is mandatory.”
   

   …or at least unless there is some incentive for healthy groups or individuals to participate. I suppose the tax exclusion (or preferably whatever replaces it) could be restricted to businesses that participate in the exchange. Of course implicit in all of this is that the exchange somehow equalizes costs between all participants.

4. Devon Herrick Says:
   August 7th, 2009 at 2:58 pm

   “Health Insurance Exchanges don’t work unless participation is mandatory.”

   Isn’t it amazing how that works? Voluntary organizations that require some participants to accept a raw deal have a hard time recruiting suckers unless the organization has the power to force people to join.

   Come to think of it, almost any club could be successful if it could require people to be members.

5. Bart Ingles Says:
   August 7th, 2009 at 4:24 pm

   Of course employer-sponsored group coverage wouldn’t even exist if the participants weren’t coerced by the tax code.

6. Linda Gorman Says:
   August 9th, 2009 at 11:44 am

   The New York Times is at it again, this time in support of the factions that want drug company results to be barred from the academic literature not on their merits but on the basis of who produced them.

   The Times somehow fails to mention that The Womens Health Initiative study of hormone replacement (which the NYT refers to as “a huge federal study on hormone therapy” when it could have just as well named it so the reader could look things up for himself), had some serious methodological problems. As a result, its conclusions about hormone replacement therapy aren’t looking less solid.

   Some authors are saying that more complete examination of the data show a reduction in coronary heart disease in women who begin using hormone replacement therapy before age 60. As published, the WHI results were said to show that hormone replacement therapy does harm.

   The NYT had an obligation to discuss this. It could turn out that the Wyeth ghostwriters were writing articles that correctly presented the data. If they didn’t, then people who disagreed should have written articles showing how the Wyeth articles were incorrect.

   In any case, the increasingly strident chorus demanding that drug companies, which know a lot about drugs, have no part in scientific discussion is just silly. Hiding drug company affiliations is not good practice, but with proper disclosure there is no reason why drug companies shouldn’t publish in the literature. They know a lot about drugs, and have their findings considered on their merits.

7. Ghostwriting Rife in Medical Journals | John Goodman | NCPA Says:
   September 16th, 2009 at 2:32 pm

   [...] previously reported on a Pfizer incident. Apparently, it was the tip of the [...]

Leave a Reply