George F. Will Admits Public Option Will Cut Costs

Insurance exists because of the decreasing marginal utility of income: most people would rather have a 100% chance of paying $300 a month than a 1% chance of paying $30,000 a month. In fact, our hypothetical customer -- let's call him Frederick, after George F. Will's middle name -- might very well accept a 100% chance of paying $400 a month rather than take 1% chance of having to pay $30,000, which he might not be able to afford. This is true even though ... Full Story »

Posted by Derek Hawkins
Tags Help
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Derek Hawkins - Jun 25, 2009 - 12:59 AM PDT
Content Type: Article
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Derek Hawkins - Jun 25, 2009 - 12:59 AM PDT

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Peter Henry
3.6
by Peter Henry - Jun. 27, 2009

An opinion piece on a piece of punditry. Noteworthy because it highlights conservative pro-corporate Will's complaint that it ain't fair for the non-profit government to compete with for-profit insurance companies. Will is a porpogandist. I don't know if Silver is a pundit (an opinion on everything, an expert on nothing), but at least he presents an argument from economics which explains why the insurance industry is by nature non-competitive. Interesting piece.

Doesn't cover economics of replacing for-profit health insurance with public single-payer option.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Dwight Rousu
2.4
by Dwight Rousu - Jun. 26, 2009

Silver develops the basis that health insurance is effectively a monopoly, but fails to state that and thence fails to state that in a monopoly, free market assumptions are trashed. He also does not mention the public hate for health insurance providers who deny or delay coverage, and then give the CEOs million dollar bonuses.

Putting George Will on a pedestal made me sick; will medicare pay?

See Full Review » (13 answers)
Derek Hawkins
3.5
by Derek Hawkins - Jun. 25, 2009
See Full Review » (2 answers)
William Owney
4.4
by William Owney - Jun. 26, 2009

For an opinion piece, it is fair in the way it depicts both sides of the issue. It is insightful and contextual in its analysis, though the short course in marginal utility is a bit difficult to follow.

The piece seems to overlook a major issue (also overlooked by mainstream media): Insurance companies pool all their risk. If AETNA looses money in other investments or other lines of insurance, it can adjust rates in all lines. It would be informative to have Nate use his analytical powers to determine what the actuarial tables might look like if the risk was limited to medical costs alone.

See Full Review » (7 answers)
Marian Peterson2
3.7
by Marian Peterson2 - Jun. 28, 2009

It turns a George Will point over on its head. Bully!

See Full Review » (6 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

3.5

Average
from 7 reviews (50% confidence)
Quality
3.5
Information
3.7
Insight
3.8
Style
3.0
Context
2.3
Expertise
2.0
Originality
3.3
Relevance
3.3
Responsibility
3.3
Popularity
3.4
Recommendation
3.3
Credibility
3.7
# Reviews
3.5
# Views
5.0
# Likes
2.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!