Monday, August 29, 2005

The New Yorker: Fact

I finished the article. My first reaction was it is short. For some reason, I thought it would have been longer, but I guess, if Mickey Kaus is correct, then short and sweet with a smart-sounding perseveration like "moral hazard" makes its reader feel more intelligent.

Second, I do think MG is correct to focus-in on the moral hazard underpinning of HSAs. I'm just not convinced it isn't important as Mr. Gladwell seems to imply.

Third, he uses the work of two Hah-vahd researchers (who else could make the faux intelligentsia feel less faux!) to rebut the moral hazard arguments. My concern is how a fraction of the 45 million uninsured are representative of the whole.

I recall an article on the efforts by the State of Maryland to coerce its uninsured into an insurance program which included a stat that 70% of its uninsured elcted to be that way!

If that is the case, and representative, would the extremes used by the Harvard researchers be appropriate?

And that is where my analysis comes to a halt. An argument based on faulty premises is not a good one.

Of course, I think it is a liberal one though.

Comments: Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?