Unhealthy Debate
After Obama's statements about how "amused" he was by the anti-tax Tea Party protests (which I posted on yesterday, and which was Instalinked), he said he'd be glad to take them on over health care. Then he listed, in essence, a bunch of free stuff the health care bill allegedly gives the public, and asked how happy Republicans would be to run on denying aid. (Next thing you know, he'll claim the Republicans support death panels.)
So far, so expected. But then I heard a conservative respond. I'm not sure who it was (some guy on the radio being interviewed) but he started talking about all the tax deductions and free stuff in Medicare that Obamacare will destroy.
This doesn't bode well. What could have been a principled debate, about the proper place of government and the free market, will have no chance. Instead we're going to get hucksters lined up along the midway promising more and more to the public if they'll just vote the right way.
Maybe this is my turn to say how amused I am by the spectacle, except we can't sustain the spending on health care as it is now.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:10 AM
9 Comments:
Since the public demands free stuff, what else can the politicians do?
Anonymous is correct. We get the politicians the majority of voters deserve. (So why do the rest of us have to suffer too - end the secret ballot!)
Face it, most voters are females and since when has anyone who says "no" to a female gotten chosen by a female?
Finally, to all those whose religion is Social Justice, I'd like to hear less "render unto Caesar" preaching and more "that shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods" from America's pulpits.
This shouldn't be a surprise. During the debate on the health care bill, most Republicans stressed over and over that the new bill would hurt Medicare. I even heard one guy say "This bill will place the government's claws in our health care!" and immediately follow it by "And we need to protect Medicare!"
It was a great winning point, because it pushed a large number of senior citizens to the anti-bill side.
This was exactly what George W. Bush did with prescription drug coverage, which he promised during the 2000 campaign and signed into law in 2003. He lured a sizeable fraction of senior citizens from the Democrats' clutches by offering them a handout. His benefit was slightly less than the one proposed by Gore -- but unlike Gore's, it was completely unfunded and set us on the road to the horrible deficits of the past seven years.
I remember Ted Kennedy fighting some suggesting for cutting a major entitlement by saying "keep your greedy hands of our" whatever, as if not giving this free money to people but letting the people who earned it keept it was greedy.
These anons seem to have some sense, but some of the other anons, or maybe just QueensGuy, seem to think it would be a problem to have "excessive" health care spending in the private sector (i.e., it would be a travesty and unsustainable if the private sector "kept going at the rate it's going", etc.)
So, LAGuy, what do you mean it's unsustainable, what we're spending? Do you mean by the government? If so, sure.
But if by the private sector, how is it a a problem? It will go up or down according to wants and budget, which by definition is not a problem. QueensGuy and his ilk will get their panties in a bunch because someone somewhere will die of cancer or be treated unfairly--completely unlike all government run systems--but presumably few of them will form businesses to solve the problem and thereby become rich.
They'd much rather form a plan, a program, shut down an infinite number of other plans and programs and investors, and give half wits with guns the position of the CEO, and then find someone to blame when someone, somewhere, dies of cancer or is treated unfairly. Or else just not allow it to be discussed, because, really, only an immature moron would be bothered by a fact of life.
Whats to complain about- the Tea Party is amusing and largely a marketing campaign made up by Dick Armey (another lie made up in Texas) which of course does not distinguish from most of the other successful (and unsuccessful) political campaigns of the last 50 years including Obama's legion of hope. That being said, the Tea Party rhetoric and nastiness is its biggest achilles heal. Sure angrying up the masses can make for good initial hits but in the long run it will exhaust and put off those are not ideologues (ie the overwhelming majority) Of course the Tea Party's greatest asset is the other side as they can turn off just as many (thats the long term effect of true believers).
Principled debate? Hah- when have you ever?
Health care is not a "private sector" like just about any other private market. Those who make payment decisions are not the same people who make treatment decisions are not the same people who ultimately bear the costs. In shorthand, every decision is riddled with externalities. And that's before you get to the tight integration of government health care programs with private insurance plans.
Throwing around macho talk about liberals and our panties doesn't simplify things. E.g. I want MORE people to die of cancer if the money now spent on cancer research would be better spent on, e.g. diabetes treatment. Cost-benefit analysis isn't just for free-market tough guys.
QG, I see your point about cost-benefit analysis not just being for the free market. In fact, it appears prima facie that bureaucrats who carefully study all the costs and benefits of different options are more likely than the private market to make choices that benefit the greatest number. Your example of cancer versus diabetes research is a good example.
But, as I'm sure you admit, one problem with this theory is that these choices are often not made by dispassionate bureaucrats whose eyes are on the general welfare. Often they are made as a result of political pressure, knee-jerk reactions (the words "cancer" and "AIDS" terrify many people much more than the names of other deadly diseases), and local politics (if a powerful congressman has a diabetes research center in his district, it gets more funds).
So the question is, do you agree that these factors are problems but you think that, in most cases, central planning will be able to overcome these hurdles?
You guys are both missing a bigger point. While we don't have a perfect free market in health care because of government interference, and while there's a lot of imperfect knowledge out there, the point is anything that gets us closer to a freer and more dynamic market will allow for greater innovation. Centralized planners, as well-meaning as they may be, and even if completely immune from political pressure, simply don't have the information to know what's going on everywhere and will make huge, systematic mistakes and not respond to problems as quickly as they should. This is embedded in any economic system, no matter how much big government types (and socialists) would wish it away.
Throw in that government corruption is not the same as free market corruption in that it's not as self-correcting, and you've got a recipe for disaster.
Post a Comment
<< Home