This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (12)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Eli Ginzberg, PhD

JAMA. 1995;274(20):1633-1634.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

IN DECIDING not to act on the Clinton health reform proposals in September 1994, Congress voted against an enlarged role for the federal government in health care. But that action did not suggest, much less confirm, its satisfaction with the status quo or its indifference to rapidly rising health care expenditures, growing numbers of the uninsured, and the presence of considerable waste and fraud. In the ensuing months the American public has been informed by a growing number of interested parties that "the market" will achieve many, if not all, of the reforms that President Clinton had earlier identified as health system priorities.

Economists have always favored reliance on the market to achieve productivity gains, a predilection that is shared by the new Republican majority and by the corporate executives of managed care companies, old and new, that ascribe their growing profitability to the virtues of the market. In short, . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
From The Eisenhower Center for the Conservation of Human Resources, Columbia University in the City of New York (NY).

Footnotes
Corresponding author: Eli Ginzberg, PhD, The Eisenhower Center for the Conservation of Human Resources, Columbia University in the City of New York, 475 Riverside Dr, Suite 248, New York, NY 10115.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?