The Obama Administration has decided to mandate that insurance companies provide dozens of tests to consumers at no charge. Any person with an IQ that is above room temperature understands, of course, that this doesn’t mean there is no cost for the tests. It just means that the costs are borne indirectly, most likely in the form of higher premiums charged by insurance companies. Yet Robert Pear, a reporter for the New York Times, leads off his story by saying that the tests are now free and this will be beneficial for consumers. And at no point in the story does he mention any of the various – and unavoidable – effects of the new government mandate. The only logical conclusion is that he is either completely oblivious to indirect costs or that he is an opinion writer masking as a reporter because he wants to advance an ideological agenda. You choose.
The White House on Wednesday issued new rules requiring health insurance companies to provide free coverage for dozens of screenings, laboratory tests and other types of preventive care. The new requirements promise significant benefits for consumers — if they take advantage of the services that should now be more readily available and affordable. …The rules will eliminate co-payments, deductibles and other charges for blood pressure, diabetes and cholesterol tests; many cancer screenings; routine vaccinations; prenatal care; and regular wellness visits for infants and children.
[…] at the New York Times, which is tediously left wing (see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here), so we’ll give the newspaper an award for the “Own-Goal […]
[…] also hit them for ignorant reporting, such as the story implying that things are free when they’re financed by government, this column that inadvertently makes the opposite point […]
[…] New York Times report about government freebies being […]
Come on Dan. What part of free don’t you get? I thought you were an economist? These tests come from the free market and free enterprise. Every New York Times reporter knows that. LOL.
Of course, next, the government agency responsible for rationing (whatever its current official name happens to be) will determine that something must be done to curtail excessive consumption of these “free” tests.
I wouldn’t be surprised if he is oblivious to indirect costs. Most people’s concept of health insurance seems to be “a system where someone other than me pays for my health care.”
One absurd part of all this is the politicians’ insistance that getting rid of co-pays and deductibles will cut total health care expenditures. Why do insurance policies have co-pays? Because experience has shown that co-pays greatly reduce the demand for health care services.
How can you be bias when you already know you are right?
perhaps he knows something about elasticity that we dont