Arnold Kling advises that, his general aversion to the health insurance industry notwithstanding, he believes what the recent PWC  study says about the Baucus “reform” bill:

I held off on commenting on the insurance industry study when it was released, because I wanted to give the study’s opponents time to assemble a reply. The reply has been mostly ad hominem.

And why have these opponents relied on ad hominem arguments? For the same reason advocates of government-run health care always use such tactics. It’s all they’ve got:

If the Democrats had solid evidence that their reform bill will not substantially raise insurance rates, then they would just give us that proof and dispose of the issue that way.

And there is also that pesky objective data. Most of the proposals contained in the Baucus bill have been tried in various states. The results aren’t promising:

At the state level, one does find higher insurance rates in states that are regulated along the lines proposed in the bill.

But hey, the PWC report was commisioned by the insurance industry and we all know that, unlike the unimpeachable studies of PNHP,  its conclusions can’t be trusted.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *