<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <title>pundits short of a clue</title>
  <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.correntewire.com/tags/pundits_short_of_a_clue"/>
  <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.correntewire.com/taxonomy/term/6405/atom/feed"/>
  <id>http://www.correntewire.com/taxonomy/term/6405/atom/feed</id>
  <updated>2008-07-16T13:38:57-04:00</updated>
  <entry>
    <title>Responding to Jonathan Cohn</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.correntewire.com/responding_to_jonathan_cohn" />
    <id>http://www.correntewire.com/responding_to_jonathan_cohn</id>
    <published>2008-07-16T13:38:57-04:00</published>
    <updated>2008-07-16T13:38:57-04:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>DCblogger</name>
    </author>
    <category term="In Sickness and In Health" />
    <category term="HCAN" />
    <category term="Health Care for America Now!" />
    <category term="HR 676" />
    <category term="PNHP" />
    <category term="pundits short of a clue" />
    <category term="single payer" />
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[ <p><a href="http://www.pnhp.org/blog/2008/07/16/response-to-tnrs-jonathan-cohn/">Don McCanne responds to TNR’s Jonathan Cohn</a></p>
<blockquote><p>Systems using private plans are more expensive, largely because of greater administrative complexity. Equity is more difficult to achieve in a multi-payer system. A system of universal risk pooling would have to be superimposed on the private plans, making us wonder why we would even want to keep them since they would no longer be providing their insurance function of transferring risk.</p>
     ]]></summary>
  </entry>
</feed>
