For a long time, I thought Ezra Klein was dumbest health care commentator writing today. I must confess, however, that I failed to take Michael Kinsley into consideration.
Kinsley, using the mighty intellect that he once applied to the question of monkeyfishing, has decided to weigh in on the comparative effectiveness controversy:
When you look at the pricetag before you buy something and ask yourself whether it’s worth it, they call this ’shopping’ … when the American health-care industry sees common sense, it’s such a strange sight that they need to invent a term to describe it. ‘Comparative effectiveness research.’
Kinsley apparently thinks that comparative effectiveness research is analogous to a stop at Neiman Marcus. Well … er … the issue is a leeeeetle more complicated than that.
In fact, the controversy isn’t really about research. What thoughtful people worry about is how a government in control of the health care system will use the results of this research.
The real-world model for government use of CER is Britain’s National Institute for Clinical Excellence, and this bureaucracy uses its research to justify putting a price on human life.
Kinsley doesn’t get into this tedious issue, however. His main argument for comparative effectiveness research is that Betsy McGaughey is uncomfortable with it. Who?
[McGaughey] almost single-handedly killed Hillary Clinton’s health care reform a quarter-century ago by writing an influential article in the New Republic.
In addition to ascribing magical powers to McGaughey, Kinsley is a tad confused about his dates. A “quarter-century” ago, Ronald Reagan was President and the Clintons lived in Arkansas.
But no matter. McGaughey’s thought crime regarding Hillarycare allows Kinsley to avoid a serious discussion of comparative effectiveness research. If she’s against it, it must be good.
Why bother with mere facts when one can simply denounce a thought criminal and go shopping (or monkeyfishing).
Post a Comment