Not exactly but I am up at Cato Unbound with a piece replying to Arnold Kling’s fascinating essay "Insulation v Insurance." Read his first, then read mine. It’s called Abundance Is Insulated from a Crisis–For Now.

In his insightful book and in this interesting essay, Arnold Kling
has made several leaps forward from the pack of “America-first free
marketeers." If you want to see them in action, take a look at the comments page
of any blogger who dares to suggest that spending nearly double what
its economic competitors are spending on health care—primarily because
it is paying its providers more for more or less the same volume of
services—may mean that the U.S. is not getting too good a deal.

It’s
apparent to any serious student of health care that the impact of
medical care on overall raw measures of health is not sufficiently
important that differences in spending here or there makes too much
difference to health. The somewhat pedantic arguments over life
expectancy and infant mortality, and the slightly more real ones over
the appropriate treatment of predominantly elderly people with serious
diseases, are all massively less important than the political and
medical culture in which the health care system exists. So there is
broad agreement, I believe, among most rational observers that the
activities Kling describes as "premium medicine" are far more in the
interests of providers and suppliers (including those middlemen who
mark up the price without taking on much risk) then they are in the
interest of patients&mdash, and certainly of society as a whole. Continue.

BTW before the brickbats start flying; “loony libertarian” is a term of affection. Actually most of the Cato guys are very sensible libertarians whom I agree with on almost all social & civil liberties issues.