Go read John Edgell on the "nudge" theories currently fashionable in the Formerly Known as Democratic Party:

Orszag makes a convincing case that significant cost savings can be deployed through “comparative effectiveness research” where health care providers and procedures are tracked for efficiencies and outcomes. Included in the $787 economic recovery package (PL 111-5) was $1.1 billion to compare the outcomes on patient health care from medicines, medical devices, surgical procedures and treatments.

Perhaps it’s the embracing and funding of outcomes research, coupled with a Democratic Congress and the White House with a firm commitment to revamping health care, that has kept health care players such as insurance companies, drug firms, for-profit hospitals, specialty physicians, and medical device makers — in other words those with the most to lose financially from any large-scale system-wide changes — from joining together in opposition. This too may be the reasoning behind the effort to find $2 trillion in voluntary cost savings.

What may be at play also is what’s known as “Nash Equilibrium,” a key concept in game theory where competitors are fully cognizant of each others’ strategies, creating an eventual greater risk should they choose to alter their strategies. With outcomes better identified, and greater transparency and efficiencies driving overall spending decisions — for example, where expanded patient drug coverage derives considerable savings on future hospitalizations — what may also be in play is “prisoner’s dilemma,” another key concept of game theory. Or what may also be in play here is a fear of being on the wrong side of a “Pareto Efficiency,” a game theory where someone else gains at your expense.

Yadda, yadda, yadda. I left a comment (go and do likewise):

Isn't all this a lot of fancy language to disguise the essential dynamic that's in play here -- that is, keeping the health insurance companies in business? I understand why a lot of fancy footwork would be needed to do that, since single payer has 3% administrative costs, vs. the 30% that goes to executive compensation, profit, and the apparatus needed to deny people care under the health-care-for-profit model, meaning that single payer saves $350 billion a year, covering the uninsured easily without raising taxes on health benefits.

For example, you write of the Nash equilibrium, where "competitors are fully cognizant of each others’ strategies." However, since all "competitors" -- except the people -- have excluded single payer from the table and censored its advocates, clearly other forces than "nudging" are at play.

Let's hope the Democrats come to their senses and do the right thing by August -- with all the players represented in this so-called "open" and "transparent" process.

Comments seem to be moderated, since mine does not appear right away. So much the better -- force them to read what you say.