Giggle. I’ll make sure and add that advice to the syllabus of the composition classes I teach.

“The first study known to me was by Auster, Leveson, & Sarachek, Journal of Human Resources, in 1969 . It found that variations across the 50 U.S. states of 1960 age-sex-adjusted death rates were significantly predicted by variations in income, education, fractions of white collar and female workers, and the existence of a local medical school, but not by variations in medical spending, urbanization, and alcohol and cigarette consumption.”

How is the existence of a local medical school not an indication of medical spending? Can medical schools be built without spending? How may I acquire one of these free medical schools? Also, to point out, death rates is a /third/ (there are more) method by which Hanson is measuring health outcomes (it is distinct from longevity, as well as general health).

And I can’t answer your question about ‘what if it’s true’, because the quote you give has the highest error rate I’ve ever seen in a straight-faced piece of medical research, and is also totally incoherent, since poor people who can pay for full-priced care are not poor, or are being given care, which makes it functionally free care — basically, the survey seems to prove that full-price care is better than free care, which I’m sure is the case. Additionally, it is completely irrational to limit the study to those in the top 80% of initial health — it basically ensures that the positive effects of health care will disappear.

It’s an interesting, counterintuitive argument, and I’ve got a lot of sympathy for thinking outside the box, but it’s wrong. Factually wrong in its original form, and morally wrong as a justification for denying health care to those in need.

I specifically allowed that point and, you’ll note, didn’t even link to the primary source which, you’ll also note, I tend to do when I think it’s important.

I think the Commonwealth Fund rankings are much more significant, both because it’s more apples-to-apples and because I think their metrics are superior to the WHO’s–in part for reasons like the ones you listed.

Nonsense. He’s just giving one possible reason (of several) why the big aggregate studies – which all do support his view and do make it look like he’s right – can be reconciled with smaller individual studies that might initially seem to suggest otherwise.

“I’m very much not in favor of the rich saying that the poor, who can’t afford doctors and don’t have the opportunity to get care, are probably better off without it.
”

But what if it’s true? The relevant quote from the Hanson essay regarding the Rand study: “At a 7% significance level they found that poor people in the top 80% of initial health ended up with a 3% lower general health index under free medicine than under full-priced medicine.”

And I’m not criticizing the use of a general health index — I’m criticizing use of a general health index sometimes, and longevity (as in the part you quote above) sometimes, and patient satisfaction sometimes, the reason that your Cato article leads off with: “Note that a muddled appearance of differing studies showing differing effects is to be expected. After all, even if medicine has little effect, random statistical error and biases toward presenting and publishing expected results will ensure that many published studies suggest positive medical benefits.”

Which is basically for him to say, well, it’s going to look like I’m wrong because the studies are going to look bad because I’m so right. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

And all told, I’m very much in favor of people limiting their own health care use — I’m not at the doctor’s so much myself — but I’m very much not in favor of the rich saying that the poor, who can’t afford doctors and don’t have the opportunity to get care, are probably better off without it.

In the Rand study, the people who paid for their care from dollar one used less care, missed fewer days from work, and were slightly *healthier* on a variety of metrics than those whose care was more subsidized. They didn’t just look at the sum but also looked at all the individual categories to determine this; the judgment criteria were specified in advance of the experiment and the judgment was double-blinded.

It would actually be tricky for me to cut my healthcare in half since I already see a doctor less than once a year. :-)

I invite you or anyone else to stop by my blog, which is all public option, all the time — just click on my name.