The law of supply and demand then dictated that the price would plummet as well, which then caused so much wealth to disappear. Now the demand is staying down, so the price stays down too.

It seems to me that Anonymous, who appears to be Claudia herself, is badly in need of a review of really basic economics.

Or is it necessary to maintain your ignorance in economics in order to believe that Single Payer is the solution?

But this IS a problem. If you are not willing to even use your name, yet say “my article”, just how trustworthy are you?

And yes, trustworthiness is an issue, one you cannot ignore if you are serious about having people take your arguments seriously.

First of all, no, I did not “overlook critical points” in your posting. They were, as you admit, LINKS to other articles. They are NOT part of the article itself.

If you are confused about the difference to links in the article and the article itself, again, this weighs against your credibility.

That said, I am glad you added the summary in a comment. I would have preferred that it be in the article itself, but since it is not, putting it in a comment to the same article is a good thing to do. Thank you.

But I do not and will not thank you for implying that I confuse the “law of supply and demand” with the “laws of nature”. Of course I do not. But among all economic laws, the law of supply and demand is closest to immutable. Even systems of economic thought that are otherwise thoroughly inimcal to each other, still all embrace the law of supply and demand.

This is exactly why any claim to a method of lowering costs (price) must address the implications of the law of supply and demand, which your otherwise excellent summary still does not do.

Finally, while I realize administrative costs are excessive, your summary does NOT even allude to an explanation why a public plan will cut those costs more effectively than stockholder pressure on the insurance companies. I think we can agree that this pressure has not performed well lately, where we will probably disagree is that government can cut it more effectively.

But if that is really the argument you want to make, show us the evidence.

I said ‘finally’, so I will not in this comment pick apart your other weak arguments. One thing at a time.

For whatever reason, you have overlooked critical points in my posting (such as the link to many multiple writings of mine and of others that provide the economic rationale for single payer — assuming, of course, you are not a for profit insurer, in which case single payer is not the right deal for you).

But, summarized, the economic argument in favor of single payer or Medicare for All lies in:

1) savings in administrative overhead, which comes from dividing people up in pools or plans, underwriting those plans, marketing, profit for shareholders, etc (about 400 billion per year would be saved in America without further changes than a change in the method of pooling finances).

2) extraordinary market leverage, as a cursory examination of the prices we pay vs. what other countries pay will show, and the prices the VA pays vs. the prices everybody else in the U.S. pays demonstrate as well. There are innumerable examples when prices in the US are compared with just about any other social insurance system in Europe, Canada, or Taiwan.

3) last but not least, a single pool spreads risk and allows the system to cross-subsidize, and be financially sustainable.

For profit insurers know this well, which is why they want to convince politicians that the “solution” to the current health care disaster is to implement a legal obligation that forces everybody to buy their defective products. But of course their goal, unlike that of social insurance systems, is to spread risk to while avoiding the sick, because their goal is not to provide a social service but to make a profit, which is reasonable because they are a business after all.

Incidentally, the “law” of supply and demand is not to be confused with laws of nature, such as gravity. Rather, it is a human construction based on a number of assumptions that, as the collapse of global finance has demonstrated, are not to be taken for granted. Adam Smith knew this very well, which is why he specifically argued against leaving national defense to the vagaries of the market.

Finally, as I have written in prior postings, I welcome well reasoned and supported objections to whatever I or other colleagues post, but please refrain from rhetorical screams that substitute for argument. If you are interesting in a constructive dialogue, aggression, including verbal aggression, really does not work.

Thank you.

It would appear that this is a common practice. I have heard lots of people shouting and stamping their feet insisting it will save money, I have NEVER heard anyone explain how such a blatant violation of the law of supply and demand would actually lower prices.

Give it up. Or finally cough up an economically sound explanation and stop trying to fool us.