Preview of coming retractions, courtesy NYT:

An alternative path is to put in place more means testing throughout Medicare. For instance, higher-income older Americans have already been paying larger Medicare premiums and receiving a lower prescription drug benefit; that’s part of what made it possible to expand the prescription benefit within budgetary constraints.

This could be taken much further. Of course, the idea of cutting some government transfers provokes protest in some quarters. One major criticism is that programs for the poor alone will not be well financed because poor people don’t have much political power. Thus, this idea goes, we should try to make transfer programs as comprehensive as possible, so that every voter has a stake in the program and will support more spending.

But even if this argument holds true now, it may not be very persuasive when Medicare costs start to push taxation levels above 50 percent. A more modest program, more directly aimed at those who need it, might prove more sustainable in the longer run.

This will certainly boost the impetus to make financial preparations and good lifestyle choices in advance, don’t you think? And just to make sure you don’t try to buy your way out (unless you’re actually rich, rather than how the government chooses to interpret your means), as this develops whatever media takes the place of the NYT in the future will be certain to decry the growing “two-track system” that emerges. Perhaps Belize would make an excellent place for independent practitioners to set up shop, for example, since se habla ingles there. In the eastern hemisphere, a similar accomodation might be found with Singapore, or an Indian city-state such as Goa.

It seems quite unlikely that the political classes will contract as a condition of their employment to rely for their health needs and those of their families to utilize the public health facilities, just as many of the most ardent political supporters of public education nevertheless find it expedient under their unique circumstances to enroll their children in private and religious schools.

As is almost always the case, those who would rather excel will generally invest their efforts in entering fields that are less hobbled by bureaucratic intrusions and budget cutting at the expense of patients. More of future treatment will devolve to specialists along the lines of today’s Lasic surgeons, committed to practicing a very narrow and technical band of related treatments with not very much risk. In order to be “open minded,” and because it costs less, government payments will continue to expand to non-traditional sectors, not because of the efficacy of such treatments, but because of the cost savings that can be realized. Those who now pillory the FDA for not being protective enough of our well-being with regards to Big Pharma will continue not to find it difficult not to observe that they don’t extend the same sorts of requirements to various shysters, who only promise little and deliver nothing. So, caveat emptor, unless they’ve got deep pockets, in which case one simply must keep the trial lawyers happy.

So, faith-based healthcare, predicated on nothing at all but blind faith.