Why don't you all list your own names on this blog? It would only seem fair to list your own names and credentials when you are in the businesses of criticizing real people who post under their own names (i.e. Becker and Posner).
You (and Becker and Posner) assume that the employee can actually buy health insurance in private markets. Many cannot and as they age, most cannot. If this isn't market failure, what is?
The overuse of health care is not initiated by the patients except in the emergengy room. The 30% care useless care used in the US is initiated by the physicians who are fearful of malpractice and the fact that most physicians don't know their patients and vis-a-vis and therefore cannot trust in anything but hard evidence.
It is easy to find faults but difficult to make your own perspective. Don't anti this anti that. Get a life, losers!
Crit Cowboy - Wow, that was an incredible piece of garbage that you just wrote. You argue by changing the rules. You make assumptions that change the entire framework. I have to assume that you are a frequent visitor to, or even a blogger for, dailykos. As others have requested, what is your real name and what are your credentials, if any. Absent you posting those, we can just assume that this is some biased piece of probaganda meant to pursue a personal political agenda without following a logical and factual framework.
Really?? I didn't think it was that bad.
It makes sense economically and socially for everyone to have health care. But, the problem with getting to this point is Republicans, like this one: http://www.greenfaucet.com/hanlo...-the-rich/
63103
Who can't handle the idea of higher taxes on the rich because they're the ones creating the jobs!
Here's some news for you, Top 10% of the country- pay the taxes and pay for healthcare or provide it directly to your employees
Good article, thanks
Until you tell me who you are, and what your bona fides are, I'm going to--basically--ignore you. I only came here by accidentally clicking the wrong link. In short, earn a Nobel prize for your peer-reviewed research, and then I'll listen to you.
By they way, an "Anti-Anything" blog really sounds petty and spiteful and lessens your credibility, while cashing in on the fame of other people's names, i.e., I got here only my clicking the wrong link when I was looking for Becker-Posner.
Why don't you tell us your names, oh so knowledgeable experts of economics? You are cowards.
I appreciated reading your thoughts in a couple of these posts, because I, too, thought some of Posner's reasoned arguments on his blog were flawed. Although I've got great respect for him, I notice some logical leaps and assumptions without evidence (e.g., his idea that the clunkers program would yield only minimal or no environmental gains, because people would suddenly be driving 50% more. Since the largest exchanges have been Ford Explorers for Toyota Corollas, supposedly, it doesn't follow that *suddenly* out of nowhere those people will suddenly start driving 50% more. People who have real "clunkers" are in no position to take on a large carpayment and higher insurance, even if they get a rebate for their clunker. Yes, those people could reasonably be expected to drive a lot more, but that's not what's happening on the ground.)
Btw, you have every right to anonymously post respectfully argued disagreements. Some of our Founding Fathers wrote the Federalist Papers under pseudonyms, so their identities didn't get in the way of people taking their reasoned arguments neutrally. Judge Posner and Becker choose not to write anonymously, presumably, partly because they hope their names and status will lend weight to their arguments. That's fine, but it's also fine to blog anonymously, especially as an ordinary person responding to a famous person in an abusive internet culture and hateful political environment. Keep up the good work; ignore the bullies. 
Also, one thing that hasn't been mentioned is that we know perfectly well employers will not give you "extra" income, because they don't have to pay insurance. Employers pay people as little as they can reasonably get away with and still attract decent employees. If employer obligation to provide health insurance was removed, it would take less than two years for them to stop considering paying any employee the increased salary versus benefits.
Let's also keep in mind that health insurance companies profits have kept rising and rising, while salaries have barely been increasing enough to keep up with inflation.
This entire post is based on that idiotic assumption that premiums will be lower if everyone is forced to buy insurance.
Simple microeconomics shows this is false. A demand shift to the right always causes price to rise, not fall.
People claiming that MORE insurance will cause prices and/or consumption to decrease are using shoddy economics or no economics at all.
It sounds like you guys in the states are playing with life and death when it comes health insurance. All for the sake of a few dollars.
Gav @ small business health insurance plan UK
Commenting by HaloScan
