<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Rationing Healthcare</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.plain-sense.com/2009/06/17/rationing-healthcare/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.plain-sense.com/2009/06/17/rationing-healthcare/</link>
	<description>For students and friends of economics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 01:36:33 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: mtngoat</title>
		<link>http://www.plain-sense.com/2009/06/17/rationing-healthcare/comment-page-1/#comment-1302</link>
		<dc:creator>mtngoat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:00:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.plain-sense.com/?p=121#comment-1302</guid>
		<description>Arguing over rationing is not wasted heat. rationing is a fact of life with limited resources and is far better to keep it in private hands, instead of turning it over the the State. 

Pushing &#039;talking points&#039; about rationing is entirely valid because the points are true. Rationing by the state will be politically motivated instead of market motivated, and that is reason number one to oppose it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Arguing over rationing is not wasted heat. rationing is a fact of life with limited resources and is far better to keep it in private hands, instead of turning it over the the State. </p>
<p>Pushing &#8216;talking points&#8217; about rationing is entirely valid because the points are true. Rationing by the state will be politically motivated instead of market motivated, and that is reason number one to oppose it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul Jenkins</title>
		<link>http://www.plain-sense.com/2009/06/17/rationing-healthcare/comment-page-1/#comment-1289</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Jenkins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Jun 2009 08:34:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.plain-sense.com/?p=121#comment-1289</guid>
		<description>Very well put, Doug.  However, in order to round some thing out, I might point to this line:

&quot;Leonhardt correctly points out that we have rationing now, and that all of the anguish over rationing in a new system is just wasted heat.&quot;

The problem here is the assumption to which economists are prone, that &#039;wasted heat&#039; is an undesirable side effect, as opposed to an intentional political tactic.  Essentially, the lobbies are pushing these talking points about rationing as hard as possible, not because it is legitimate, but because the reactionary elements will muddy the debate.  The entire goal is to keep the debate in Congress for as long as possible.

&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/congress-good-place-for-health-care-to.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This article&lt;/a&gt; at FiveThirtyEight.com analyzes the debate back in the Clinton years.  Clinton&#039;s big mistake seems to have been allowing the plan to work in Congress instead of using a bully pulpit.  

LBJ, by contrast, knew what he was up against.  He cracked heads, twisted arms, and pounded the Great Society down the throats of Congress to make it happen.

The lesson?  Most of the talk of &quot;socialist rationing&quot; and &quot;bureaucratic medicine&quot; is coming from big Pharma and big Insurance to create exactly the sort of &#039;wasted heat&#039; you&#039;re describing.  If enough heat can get wasted, the engine might never fire.  ;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very well put, Doug.  However, in order to round some thing out, I might point to this line:</p>
<p>&#8220;Leonhardt correctly points out that we have rationing now, and that all of the anguish over rationing in a new system is just wasted heat.&#8221;</p>
<p>The problem here is the assumption to which economists are prone, that &#8216;wasted heat&#8217; is an undesirable side effect, as opposed to an intentional political tactic.  Essentially, the lobbies are pushing these talking points about rationing as hard as possible, not because it is legitimate, but because the reactionary elements will muddy the debate.  The entire goal is to keep the debate in Congress for as long as possible.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/congress-good-place-for-health-care-to.html" rel="nofollow">This article</a> at FiveThirtyEight.com analyzes the debate back in the Clinton years.  Clinton&#8217;s big mistake seems to have been allowing the plan to work in Congress instead of using a bully pulpit.  </p>
<p>LBJ, by contrast, knew what he was up against.  He cracked heads, twisted arms, and pounded the Great Society down the throats of Congress to make it happen.</p>
<p>The lesson?  Most of the talk of &#8220;socialist rationing&#8221; and &#8220;bureaucratic medicine&#8221; is coming from big Pharma and big Insurance to create exactly the sort of &#8216;wasted heat&#8217; you&#8217;re describing.  If enough heat can get wasted, the engine might never fire.  <img src='http://www.plain-sense.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul Jenkins</title>
		<link>http://www.plain-sense.com/2009/06/17/rationing-healthcare/comment-page-1/#comment-1288</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Jenkins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Jun 2009 08:33:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.plain-sense.com/?p=121#comment-1288</guid>
		<description>Very well put, Doug.  However, in order to round some thing out, I might point to this line:

&quot;Leonhardt correctly points out that we have rationing now, and that all of the anguish over rationing in a new system is just wasted heat.&quot;

The problem here is the assumption to which economists are prone, that &#039;wasted heat&#039; is an undesirable side effect, as opposed to an intentional political tactic.  Essentially, the lobbies are pushing these talking points about rationing as hard as possible, not because it is legitimate, but because the reactionary elements will muddy the debate.  The entire goal is to keep the debate in Congress for as long as possible.

&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/congress-good-place-for-health-care-to.html&quot; title=&quot;This article &quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;at FiveThirtyEight.com analyzes the debate back in the Clinton years.  Clinton&#039;s big mistake seems to have been allowing the plan to work in Congress instead of using a bully pulpit.  

LBJ, by contrast, knew what he was up against.  He cracked heads, twisted arms, and pounded the Great Society down the throats of Congress to make it happen.

The lesson?  Most of the talk of &quot;socialist rationing&quot; and &quot;bureaucratic medicine&quot; is coming from big Pharma and big Insurance to create exactly the sort of &#039;wasted heat&#039; you&#039;re describing.  If enough heat can get wasted, the engine might never fire.  ;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very well put, Doug.  However, in order to round some thing out, I might point to this line:</p>
<p>&#8220;Leonhardt correctly points out that we have rationing now, and that all of the anguish over rationing in a new system is just wasted heat.&#8221;</p>
<p>The problem here is the assumption to which economists are prone, that &#8216;wasted heat&#8217; is an undesirable side effect, as opposed to an intentional political tactic.  Essentially, the lobbies are pushing these talking points about rationing as hard as possible, not because it is legitimate, but because the reactionary elements will muddy the debate.  The entire goal is to keep the debate in Congress for as long as possible.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/congress-good-place-for-health-care-to.html" title="This article " rel="nofollow">at FiveThirtyEight.com analyzes the debate back in the Clinton years.  Clinton&#8217;s big mistake seems to have been allowing the plan to work in Congress instead of using a bully pulpit.  </p>
<p>LBJ, by contrast, knew what he was up against.  He cracked heads, twisted arms, and pounded the Great Society down the throats of Congress to make it happen.</p>
<p>The lesson?  Most of the talk of &#8220;socialist rationing&#8221; and &#8220;bureaucratic medicine&#8221; is coming from big Pharma and big Insurance to create exactly the sort of &#8216;wasted heat&#8217; you&#8217;re describing.  If enough heat can get wasted, the engine might never fire.  <img src='http://www.plain-sense.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> </a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

