Virginia Postrel is in favor of unions--doctors' unions, that is:
Dynamist Blog: MEDICAL PRICE CONTROLS Reader Skip Oliva, president of Citizens for Voluntary Trade writes:
One price control on reimbursement rates that gets no discussion nationally is the FTC and DOJ's use of antitrust law to prevent physicians from organizing to negotiate with managed care plans. For example, if a group of pediatricians in a region get together and jointly negotiate with the dominant HMO to stop reimbursing them below cost for administering child vaccines (I'm taking this from a real case), the FTC would deem that an antitrust violation, since the doctors are not "competing" sufficiently...
Of course, I don't believe that she is in favor of any other kind of union.
And you have to just love the Orwellian touch by which the FTC's attempt to keep doctors from collectively fixing their prices by forming a conspiracy in restraint of trade is called a "price control."
Posted by DeLong at September 16, 2003 05:33 PM | TrackBack
No unions for doctors? That's funny---I wonder how all these barriers to entry to foreign MDs practicing the in the US came about.
Posted by: Stephen J Fromm on September 16, 2003 06:23 PMBut the point of the article she quotes approvingly is that doctors' unions aren't strong enough...
Posted by: Brad DeLong on September 16, 2003 06:28 PMPlease join the Hack's Union.
Posted by: Hackenkaus on September 16, 2003 06:29 PMLibertarians all favor unions. They just don't like the Wagner Act. They're equally hostile to the Taft-Hartley Act.
What sort of mechanism they want to use to prevent union-management violence that prevailed before unions were heavily regulated is unknown. Perhaps the Pinkertons and FOP could sit down peacefully and propose a voluntary policy.
Posted by: Newt on September 16, 2003 10:35 PMLibertarians all favor unions. They just don't like the Wagner Act. They're equally hostile to the Taft-Hartley Act.
What sort of mechanism they want to use to prevent union-management violence that prevailed before unions were heavily regulated is unknown. Perhaps the Pinkertons and FOP could sit down peacefully and propose a voluntary policy.
Posted by: Newt on September 16, 2003 10:36 PMThe point is that individual doctors, who generally are not big time campaign donors are in the process of competing with huge insurance companies who are. Even though we spend 14% of our GDP on health care we don't really have any better health care than Canada which spends 8%, the difference which largely goes to costs of not having a single payer health insurance program for the country (See August 2003 New England Journal of Medicine for a analysis). So with the change to HMOs and PPOs Doctors who were promised more liberty have gotten less and given less proportionally by the insurance companies and administration necessary to deal with our byzantine Health care system. More of the beauty of the free market to solve all problems in a maximally efficient way.
Posted by: non economist on September 16, 2003 10:42 PMLibertarians all favor unions. They just don't like the Wagner Act. They're equally hostile to the Taft-Hartley Act.
What sort of mechanism they want to use to prevent union-management violence that prevailed before unions were heavily regulated is unknown. Perhaps the Pinkertons and FOP could sit down peacefully and propose a voluntary policy.
Posted by: Newt on September 16, 2003 10:43 PMLibertarians all favor unions. They just don't like the Wagner Act. They're equally hostile to the Taft-Hartley Act.
What sort of mechanism they want to use to prevent union-management violence that prevailed before unions were heavily regulated is unknown. Perhaps the Pinkertons and FOP could sit down peacefully and propose a voluntary policy.
Posted by: Newt on September 16, 2003 10:44 PMLibertarians all favor unions. They just don't like the Wagner Act. They're equally hostile to the Taft-Hartley Act.
What sort of mechanism they want to use to prevent union-management violence that prevailed before unions were heavily regulated is unknown. Perhaps the Pinkertons and FOP could sit down peacefully and propose a voluntary policy.
Posted by: Newt on September 16, 2003 10:46 PMI wonder what Newt thinks?
Posted by: Bob Dobalina on September 17, 2003 09:02 AMI can tell you what Newt thinks.
Newt thinks the comment system needs to be fixed.
Posted by: Newt on September 17, 2003 10:07 AM"And you have to just love the Orwellian touch by which the FTC's attempt to keep doctors from collectively fixing"
~~
This is a misuse of the word "Orwellian", which is being greatly overused these day.
Noting that the government increases its power to set prices as it wants by undercutting its vendors' ability to bargain and calling this "price fixing" is mere exaggeration.
"Orwellian" indicates terms are being used as their opposite in a logically inconsistent manner.
"War is Peace" is Orwellian.
Damning people for being evil participants in "conspiracy here, albeit one whose organization and goals are pretty much out in the open" is Orwellian.
Posted by: Jim Glass on September 17, 2003 10:38 AMBrad DeLong -
Perhaps we are fortunate, but we really do in in-effect bargain for rates with insurance providers in our region and have a nice cushion. We really do have a union, though never ever repeat that, and we are always pushing but make our way nicely. Doctors are really not defenseless against insurance companies, nor should we be.
Posted by: jd on September 17, 2003 12:04 PM"Orwellian" doesn't indicate that terms are being used in a logically inconsistent manner, it indicates that terms are being used in a way exemplified by George Orwell. In 1984 there were lots of abuses of language other than just the doublethink of "War is Peace" (newspeak itself, for instance), and anyway, Orwell hasn't just written 1984. He also wrote, for instance, Politics and the English Language, a laundry list of ways that politicians and writers obscure the meaning of their words.
Posted by: Anno-nymous on September 17, 2003 12:10 PM