Glenn Reynolds flags a letter from economist Don Boudreaux to NPR reporters Chana Joffe-Walt and David Kestenbaum. Reynolds is correct when he writes that the letter is worth re-posting in full:

Ms. Chana Joffe-Walt and Mr. David Kestenbaum
All Things Considered
National Public Radio
Dear Ms. Joffe-Walt and Mr. Kestenbaum:
Your excellent February 26, 2010, report on the history of how government officials chose the different methods that Medicare has used over the years to determine doctors’ pay is frightening because…
… in your report, Joe Califano, a chief architect of Medicare, admits that the first method of determining doctors’ pay was chosen for political reasons, namely, to buy doctors’ support for Medicare.
… you report that Mr. Califano, LBJ, and Congress were genuinely surprised by the rapid cost increases sparked by this first method.
… you reveal that much of the treatment that Medicare paid for was previously provided free by physicians; that is, Medicare crowded out a sizable chunk of private-sector philanthropy.
… you tell how attempts to change this first method of paying doctors were deeply influenced by skilled lobbyists working on behalf of doctors.
… in describing the development of the method currently used for determining doctors’ pay, you (perhaps without realizing it) reveal that this current method is the product of a comically childish labor-theory-of-value analysis – the same sort of analysis that is at the foundation of Marxian economics.
… your report ends with the admission that, because the current method isn’t working so well, Uncle Sam – 45 years after Medicare was launched – is still searching for a sound method for determining physicians’ pay.
Given this history, what reason is there to suppose that Obamacare is a good idea?
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030

I think one thing is important to note: I don’t know how Joffe-Walt or Kestenbaum would answer Boudreaux’s question, but we shouldn’t necessarily believe that just because they work for NPR they both think Obamacare is a good idea. As I mentioned a few months back, NPR’s reporting on Obamacare — especially the work done by the Planet Money team and Chicago Public Radio’s This American Life – has been thorough, even-handed, and utterly devastating to the case for subsidized universal comprehensive health insurance. Give it a read and download the TAL two–parter on health care in America if you like to listen to podcasts on your commute, at the gym or, for our Canadian readers, during your interminable wait for medical care.