The Potemkin Presidency meets a moment of sanity in The New York Times (with an observation from Hilaire Belloc and an admonition from Friedrich Hayek)
Let me start with the observation from Hilaire Belloc. In his book The Servile State, Belloc writes that “The control of the production of wealth is the control of human life itself.”
I rather doubt that President Obama or any of his inner circle is a student of Hilaire Belloc. But they have demonstrated again and again their intuitive grasp of Belloc’s insight. If only, they reason, they can turn over enough of the productive capacity of the country to the government, then (so they think) they will be in a position to eradicate the age-old irrationalities and inequities that have beset our capitalist society from the beginning.
Belloc knew better, and a lot more could be said about the likely results of the Obama administration’s ambition to control the production of wealth. For the moment, however, I just want you to bear Belloc’s point in mind as you ponder an excellent piece about the Obama administration’s plans for health care by N. Gregory Mankiw. I hope you will put your prejudice to one side when you learn that 1) not only is Mankiw is a professor of economics but also he practices that discipline at Harvard and 2) his piece appeared in The New York Times. Notwithstanding Harvard, notwithstanding even The New York Times, “The Pitfalls of the Public Option” piece casts the cool light of sanity on what the Obama administration wishes to do to health care.
What is the public option option? It is one part rhetorical subterfuge combined with three parts government control. Professor Mankiw quotes from a letter President Obama sent to Senators Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Max Baucus of Montana: “I strongly believe,” Obama wrote, “that Americans should have the choice of a public health insurance option operating alongside private plans. This will give them a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep insurance companies honest.”
OK. Let’s play “What’s wrong with this picture?” Let’s say we opt for the “public option.” What would it mean? If the government got more heavily involved in health care (beyond what it already does with the Veterans Administration, Medicare, and Medicaid), would that actually give Americans “a better range of choices,” where by “better” Obama might have meant “more choices,” “higher quality choices,” or both? What do you think? While you decide what is the best way of expressing the conclusion “no, absolutely not,” ask yourself whether an industry that had a “public option,” i.e., that was government controlled with the unlimited power of sanction that government control implies: ask yourself, I say, whether that would encourage or discourage competition? Imagine that the government got into the business of garbage removal. How would you feel about setting up shop with your own competing Acme Dispose-All Company? How would you fare against an entity that wrote all the rules and had at its disposal the resources of the public purse? As for the insurance companies, why should we think that the granddaddy of all insurance companies, i.e., the U.S. government, would be more honest when distributing scarce resources than the 1300 or so companies that now compete for your business are?
Professor Mankiw has this to say: “Even if one accepts the president’s broader goals of wider access to health care and cost containment” — and who doesn’t? — “his economic logic regarding the public option is hard to follow.” Professor Mankiw is a generous spirit. By “hard to follow,” he really means “completely bogus.” He goes on:
Consumer choice and honest competition are indeed the foundation of a successful market system, but they are usually achieved without a public provider. We don’t need government-run grocery stores or government-run gas stations to ensure that Americans can buy food and fuel at reasonable prices.
Indeed. And here is the $64,000 — I mean, the $1.85 trillion — question:
An important question about any public provider of health insurance is whether it would have access to taxpayer funds. If not, the public plan would have to stand on its own financially, as private plans do, covering all expenses with premiums from those who signed up for it.
But if such a plan were desirable and feasible, nothing would stop someone from setting it up right now. In essence, a public plan without taxpayer support would be yet another nonprofit company offering health insurance. The fundamental viability of the enterprise does not depend on whether the employees are called “nonprofit administrators” or “civil servants.”
To me, the Wizard of OZ comes to mind. The Oz appertains was actually a lot more impressive, with flames and a large moving face, and a bellering PA system, and an unremarkable man at the controls. The administration OTOH, is a garden-variety teleprompter with a teleprompter savant reading it. The only question is, who’s at the keyboard, actually determining what’s being said?
I can’t wait to see how some of the Obamatrons try and defend this health insurance ‘option.’
Mr. Kimball:
“Imagine that the government got into the business of garbage removal. How would you feel about setting up shop with your own competing Acme Dispose-All Company? How would you fare against an entity that wrote all the rules and had at its disposal the resources of the public purse?”
Easy. The very first people I’d hire would be family members and political cronies of the bosses of the bureaucrats who oversaw and controlled the budget of the trash-collection agency.
The town car dealer would get a big order for trash trucks, the town newspaper would see paid ad-space “love”, the contracts in the part of town that regularly turned out at the polls would be very well-served by my company, while those areas with public service would see budget cuts, safety regulations and environmental impediments thrown in their path.
And I’d probably hire illegal aliens to do the actual work at sub-par wages,low enough to allow me to pass a modicum of the savings along to the customers while funding my graft patronage jobs and still pocketing a chunk.
When you come right down to it, what do you care who takes your garbage away, as long as it IS taken away?
I’d make a mint.
All image, no substance. A winning strategy? In the short term, evidently, YES!
The strange thing is that the main proponent of this “philosophy”, the man behind the teleprompter, the ultimate power grabber, does not see the realities of power grabbing, a.k.a. the tyranny of the ruling Ayatollah and his consort.
We are on a collision course with reality. The man who gathered the greatest pile of money ever behind a US presidencial election must have loyalties with largesses we have not recognized, yet.
He wants to make the world a “better place”
We look at that and see WORLD and BETTER PLACE and think that at least he means well. But the important words are HE wants to MAKE a better place. He doesn’t necessarily want the world to BE a better place if HE doesn’t have anything to do with it (as is the case with free markets).
Obama and his inner circles grasp of “control of the productin of wealth is control of human life itself” is not “intuitivee.” It is principled,an article in all their plans. Because what they are doing are the acts of idiots,doesn’t mean they are not doing exactly what they intend to do.
Mr Kimball,
Aside from the excellent points you make in your post, I am beginning to suspect that as more articles critical of Obama’s incompetence and downright misfeasance (even malfeasance) appear in heretofore sympathetic publications, there will be a rise in circulation (if only a blip) and that the publishers will direct their editors to spike less of the “King’s New Clothes” stories. The vacuum created by this love affair between Obama and the State Owned Media will draw one or two of them out, thinking that they will be the Woodward and Bernstein who toppled the corrupt Obama administration. Soon, “journalists” will dine out on these, making a career of this genre.
A niche market for now, but delicious to contemplate.
Two works to read about socialism and the view that justice consists of the equal distribution of all goods:
(1) Moravchik, The History of Socialism
(2) David Hume, Inquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, esp. ch. 2, “On Justice,” where Hume predicts the evils of communism.
“I rather doubt that President Obama or any of his inner circle is a student of Hilaire Belloc.”
Oh, Roger, you wear your learning sooo lightly.
Just so your readers do not wallow in their ignorance. Krugman’s observation
“Health care is not a bowl of cherries
Or a carton of milk, or a loaf of bread.
Both George Will and Greg Mankiw basically argue that we don’t need a government role because we can trust the market to work — hey, we do it for groceries, right?
Um, economists have known for 45 years — ever since Kenneth Arrow’s seminal paper — that the standard competitive market model just doesn’t work for health care: adverse selection and moral hazard are so central to the enterprise that nobody, nobody expects free-market principles to be enough. To act all wide-eyed and innocent about these problems at this late date is either remarkably ignorant or simply disingenuous.”
As I see it, this health care reform is just a way for the Democrats to fix Social Security. By limiting health procedures and care to the elderly in time we of the babby boomers will fade away before our allotted time. Thereby shorting our time receiving social security checks. So they have fixed two problems with one change.
Interesting that you should start with citing Hillaire Belloc since he was opposed to both capitalism and socialism
And the governments of all the countries that do socialized health care ration that care by their own lights making decisions that would get any private company sued and rightly so.
Governments have always been better at consigning people to death and/or suffering than any private free market company.
Government should never be trusted with anything more than what ONLY the government can do. If the government of the US was slashed in half the people of America would actually be better off.
“…that the standard competitive market model just doesn’t work for health care”
Since when have we had a competitive market model in our modern age? This has never been the case since WWII. The federal government foolishly mandated wage and price control. The large companies could not offer a wage hike—but they could provide “free” health care. Employees could not choose between a wage hike or the health insurance. Thus, they never appreciated that there was actually a cost associated with the newly acquired health insurance.
It is also against the law for insurance companies to offer options not approved by the political class. Free market principles therefore are virtually of little value in such an environment.
Looks like we may have another President Mugabe in the White House. The original President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe did such a fine job on destroying that once-productive economy, I guess our Mugabe clone has taken a page from his playbook. Healthcare is only one more step in the process.
This administration should be renamed the Audacity of Dopes. Obama speaking of a “competing” government health care program is another of his beautiful lies that drives those of us smart enough to see through it (apparently we are in the minority in this country) into apoplectic rage every time he slips it past the fawning media and ignorant public. How can an entity that is funded by taxpayers, Chinese bondholders, and the printing presses at the US Mint, with no real shareholders to answer to, be called a “competitive” venture? This “public plan,” once life is breathed into it, will become a massive monster which, once it tilts the playing field in its favor, will become a pit that you can never stop throwing money into.
I feel sorry for the Wall I bang my head against.
Pointing out the downside of a government public health progrm to the Alinskyite administration is like pointing out the downside of Sharia law to the Ayatollah Khemani. The NYT and every newspaper and TV network in the nation could come out against it and they would still try to jam it through.
Socialists are who you voted in. Socialism is what you are going to get. As fast as possible, and with no time for you to read the fine print.”I won. You lost. Deal with it.”
Off subject but goes to the pattern of this president
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/26/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5117890.shtml?tag=pop
I believe that the President and every member of Congress and their families should be required to get 100% of their health care through the VA system for two years. If they report afterward that they are completely satisfied with their care, I will start to take them seriously. Anybody in Washington need a colonoscopy?
#20 Rich:
“I believe that the President and every member of Congress and their families should be required to get 100% of their health care through the VA system for two years.”
Next you’ll doubtless agitate that a President with school age children send them to the DC Public Schools.
Whaddayou…nuts?
#13 The Shadow:
“Interesting that you should start with citing Hillaire Belloc since he was opposed to both capitalism and socialism”
That’s not at all surprising. Most people are opposed to capitalism when they are young and poor, and then are just as opposed to socialism when they are old and well-off.
Yes, but if we adopt government run health insurance, and wind up with a single-payer system, where will Canadian MPs go when they have cancer and need treatment quickly, because they shouldn’t have to wait in line with the common folk? I don’t understand how liberals can advocate this, with a straight face, when that’s already happened. My guess is that when the dust has cleared, there will be one system for us, and another for those in government…otherwise they’d be treated equally, and the millionaires in Congress won’t stand for that. John Edwards could buy his own hospital…does anyone imagine his wife sharing a room with someone?
This should scare anyone from his idea of health care.
Please go to youtube, I’m not sure if I could post the link here.
Obama Depopulation Policy Exposed! Red Alert!!!!!!
Bilgeman – try reading Belloc before you respond
Shadow,
Quoting Kenneth Arrow’s work in this area doesn’t strike me as relevant. He wrote when health care meant one doctor seeing one patient and that doctor came to your house; insurance did not cover most of a family’s medical expenses; Medicare had not been enacted and there weren’t 40 years of history of Medicare’s problems and failures. Also, it was written just before the technological age in medicine truly began. Arrow’s main point was uncertainty and how uncertainty can drive response in complex human systems.
Once again, we see that Shadow loves the intrusion of the state and the raising of the state’s desires above those of the individual.
The NYT doing it’s job. What a shocker! Where was this rag during the election?
President Obama is doing everything I thought he would. If you studied his past in detail you would have been able to list out accurately what his policies and actions would be.
So now the NYT decides it’s time to publish Prof Mankiw? It is completely predictable that they would do it after the corporation made sure he was elected. They will now bury this story in an avalanche of other stories about nationalization of health care that will obfuscate the coming disaster. Like GE they are invested in this administration just like German corporations were invested in Hitler’s facsism.
I will agree to health care nationalization if Congress and the President agree to live by the following conditions upon penalty of immediate resignation from office if they or a family member violate these policies or fail to deliver under these rules:
1. The exact same rules they construct for us apply to them, no exceptions.
2. Prices for health care go down for every American and every citizen pays less for health carte. No exceptions.
3. Every citizen gets access to health care as fast or faster for every condition, surgery etc than before nationalzation.
4. No rationing for any reason. Any Citizen who can establish a prima facie case that they have been forced to wait for a medical procedure or have been subjected to rationing shall have a cause of action against the government and if successful in court, a right to attorneys fee’s, costs and enhanced damages.
5. Every “provider” is permitted to make a profit and return to their share holders. This includes drug companies and device makers. No law can be passed that limits profits.
6. The government can establish no rule that favors the government payer over the private provider including anti trust.
7. The establishing statute and regulations sunset in 5 years unless 2/3 of each congressional body votes to renew the legislation.
Congress and the President will never agree to these conditions because they know that their legislation can’t survive such scrutiny. The first rule I recited would cause them to disagree; they would never agree to live by the rules they impose on the rest of us. That is how you can tell they are disingenuous about legislation. They always build in exceptions for themselves and their friends.
Remember, 3/4 of Americans like the system that exists now. Leave it to the looters in Washington to propose ruining that system so 16 million citizens who are uninsured get covered. Don’t fall for the 43 million figure, it includes illegal aliens who are not citizens.
“It is too early to say how it all will end.”
If Obama “wins”, we will all be losers. An additional 17% of the economy will be directly or indirectly controlled by government, and there will be no practical way of undoing the damage in the short, medium term, or long term.
The Democrats have been inspired by the President to go to any lengths to not “do nothing”. The proposed legislation can’t be as inconsequential and inevitable as they are portraying it. Why not attempt to measure if there is a better or worse standard of health care using the public option in a limited setting before enacting “sweeping” change? Oh, but we cannot miss an opportunity to save the entire nation
The CBO estimates for Obamacare ought to be fairly useless, considering that a public health care option has never been implemented so there is no history upon which to base estimates (they did their best, no doubt). Whatever the costs, and despite the costs, Democrats strongly believe that this is their moment in history to dramatically change the US. However, predictions based on major, untested changes usually deviate far from reality.
Democrat’s logic allows them to make sweeping changes, and yet hold everything else constant (ceteris paribus.) When health care changes dramatically, from new bureacracies to new regulations, their conclusion is that the standard of care will not change, or be better, and the costs will fall. Using “real logic”, only one thing is certain: that new government bureaucrats will “make” more money than they did before, because now they exist.
Liberals unconditionally believe that they can solve massively complex problems like health care. The problem is that there are many bad precendents of government involvement in complex systems throughout history. Many have been well documented, from a nearly broken air traffic control system, to an increasingly insolvent medicare and medicaid, to inability to regulate the financial system. We are supposed to excuse the insanity of trying government prescriptions over and over, and we are told expect different results.
“With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan–to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.”
- Abraham Lincoln, Second Inaugural Address
What is strange to me is how many on the Left have a definition of justice that is complete self-indulgence/government paying for everything, and that definition is separate from their views on peace, given that peace is something that requires no effort or aid necessarily, but just leaving people alone.
Going back to Lincoln, you get a more accurate picture of justice & peace: they’re worth fighting for, they cost more than mere dollars. It may seem strange to you that I’m bringing this issue up here, when the issue seems to be one of cost, but remember the import of “damn the economics,” which is underlying the desire for universal health care. It’s not merely unrealistic, it’s the idea that justice itself costs nothing, that we only talk about sacrifices to get something passed and never feel that pain.
Great article. I agree completely that Obama is clueless about the way the world works. The porkulus bill is an example that he believes in the shotgun approach to economics. As long as it furthers his vague goal of redistribution of wealth he does not care whether it is paid for by this generation or next–the people with money will pay regardless.
AMERICA’S NATIONAL HEALTHCARE EMERGENCY!
It’s official. America and the World are now in a GLOBAL PANDEMIC. A World EPIDEMIC with potential catastrophic consequences for ALL of the American people. The first PANDEMIC in 41 years. And WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES will have to face this PANDEMIC with the 37th worst quality of healthcare in the developed World.
STAND READY AMERICA TO SEIZE CONTROL OF YOUR NATIONAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM.
We spend over twice as much of our GDP on healthcare as any other country in the World. And Individual American spend about ten times as much out of pocket on healthcare as any other people in the World. All because of GREED! And the PRIVATE FOR PROFIT healthcare system in America.
And while all this is going on, some members of congress seem mostly concern about how to protect the corporate PROFITS! of our GREED DRIVEN, PRIVATE FOR PROFIT NATIONAL DISGRACE. A PRIVATE FOR PROFIT DISGRACE that is in fact, totally valueless to the public health. And a detriment to national security, public safety, and the public health.
Progressive democrats the Tri-Caucus and others should stand firm in their demand for a robust public option for all Americans, with all of the minimum requirements progressive democrats demanded. If congress can not pass a robust public option with at least 51 votes and all robust minimum requirements, congress should immediately move to scrap healthcare reform and request that President Obama declare a state of NATIONAL HEALTHCARE EMERGENCY! Seizing and replacing all PRIVATE FOR PROFIT health insurance plans with the immediate implementation of National Healthcare for all Americans under the provisions of HR676 (A Single-payer National Healthcare Plan For All).
Coverage can begin immediately through our current medicare system. With immediate expansion through recruitment of displaced workers from the canceled private sector insurance industry. Funding can also begin immediately by substitution of payroll deductions for private insurance plans with payroll deductions for the national healthcare plan. This is what the vast majority of the American people want. And this is what all objective experts unanimously agree would be the best, and most cost effective for the American people and our economy.
In Mexico on average people who received medical care for A-H1N1 (Swine Flu) with in 3 days survived. People who did not receive medical care until 7 days or more died. This has been the same results in the US. But 50 million Americans don’t even have any healthcare coverage. And at least 200 million of you with insurance could not get in to see your private insurance plans doctors in 2 or 3 days, even if your life depended on it. WHICH IT DOES!
If President Obama has to declare a NATIONAL STATE OF EMERGENCY to rescue the American people from our healthcare crisis, he will need all the sustained support you can give him. STICK WITH HIM! He’s doing a brilliant job.
THIS IS THE BIG ONE!
THE BATTLE OF GOOD Vs EVIL!
Join the fight.
Contact congress and your representatives NOW! AND SPREAD THE WORD!
God Bless You
Jacksmith – WORKING CLASS
Two quick thoughts:
In areas where medical insurance does not intrude, such as lasik surgery, quality of care has improved and costs have declined; and
The concept of first dollar coverage in health insurance is comparable to buying a warranty for an automobile that pays for all of our gas purchases, routine maintenance, etc.
People do make rational decisions, as they perceive them, when the opportunity presents itself.
When the walls of O’s Potemkin Presidency come crashing down (will they?), who gets the Buster Keaton part?
Shock and awe statism is a good term for O’s approach. He may be clueless but he is truly and effectively in the process of fundamentally transforming this country. I don’t think it’s what our founders had in mind. I don’t like it.
Jacksmith @ 32 above.
I can’t tell if your tongue is firmly planted in your cheek, but the 37th worst health care figure comes from WHO and has been completely discredited as impossibly biased and skewed. Canada and most of the Western European countries are rated higher but quality of care gets less respect than theoretical access.
You can also obtain virtually immediate access in our country either through insurance or emergency room.
The vast majority of US citizens are satisfied with their health care.
The Kanuks are already ahead of you on that one: Indian Reservations. They’ll say private clinics are allowed on reservations, just like smokes, fireworks, and casinos.
Clever, aren’t they? Let the Indians sell the indulgences, which spares the white liberals any criticism, and keeps the bad goodies available. Kinda like the medieval Christians who would let the Jews charge interest.
Kevins – Great to see your analysis of economic decision making – Where did you get your PhD?
Federal Reserve monetary policy is one reason health care is increasingly more expensive.
Here’s how it works. With advancing technology comes efficiency gains which would normally result in lower prices for mass-producible consumer goods.
Instead, the Federal Reserve expands the money supply to keep those prices from falling.
Over time, this causes a widening gap between the prices of mass-producible goods, which appear level, and the prices of non-mass-producible goods such as health care, which appear to be increasing more quickly.
In stealing away our productivity gains through inflation, the Federal Reserve has driven up health care costs disproportionately as a side-effect.
So the government is partly to blame for causing the so-called health care crisis in the first place.
The Mole is in.
Look, up north there are only 30 million Canadians. We can wipe them out in no time, just like the indians 250 years ago, and create America 2.0. We’ll show King Obama and his power and tax hungry American Commonwealth Empire. Get ready for the Toronto Tea Party.
Nothing regulates the price of a car better than a consumer who walks out of an overpriced dealership and goes to the one across the street. The same is true for medicine or hookers. Different strokes for different folks. Bang for the buck. And many more lurid cliches.
It is medicaid and medicare that are one of the major culprits.
There is no incentive to competition, and it opens the way to abuse by patients.
The function of the AMA as a “labor Union” does not help matter either.
And of course there is the trail lawyer business.
The problem with health care in this country i that there is too much government involved in the first place.
It is just another government racket. Obamacare will make it a million times worse.
We might get de facto euthanasia out of this. I would not be surprised to find that access to health care is used in a political weapon. It was in the USSR.
It is a simple practical matter to address healthc are costs; It is a nearly impossible political matter for the electorate seems to neither have the desire or the capacity to address the real issues.
Welcome to the new Third World America.
Shadow at #37;
You have a predictable patern of attacking the person when you are presented with a counter argument. You are obviously a knowledgable individual. Instad of attacking Kevin s for lack of phd which is ad hominem and irrelevant why don’t you counter his well resoned position to further the discussion?
Just a thought.
Samizdat – If there is no common ground of agreement on the basic truths there is no way to have a discussion. Basically, what Kenneth Arrow said was that you cannot submit the decision about healthcare to the same criteria as you would for decisions about buying a car. If you do not know the difference then we cannot have a dicussion.
I came accross this quote that summarizes the issue
“Even if individual economic decisions were entirely rational, which they’re obviously not, when it comes to life and death, the only rational decision is to do whatever it takes to live. That’s an unusual economic decision.”
I would like to add that a flu pandemic is a natural disaster, not a health care crisis. Just because it overwhelms the health system, doesn’t mean it’s a health care crisis. The same thing would happen if an earthquake destroyed a major city. Flu pandemics cannot be prevented any more than earthquakes can.
It may sound noble to say, “Damn economics, let us build up a decent world” — but it is, in fact, merely irresponsible. That’s only 119 characters. Can’t someone Tweet that message to the President and his enablers?
It would be wonderful to believe that President Obama and his enablers only want to build a better world. Health care will be the least of our worries if this cap and trade bill becomes law.
#20. Rich, I would extend that time to the entire duration of Obamacare. Obama and his family, too.
Shadow,
Your rejoinder is defective. Educate us on your argument. Don’t assume we can’t have a give and take because your information is diffferent than someone else’s. Your position is defective if you can’t explain it clearly.
I also disagree with the quote at # 45 above. We make life and death economic decisions everyday, they are not unusual. Some examples:
1. Auto purchases, home purchases and common carrier use all involve saftey of outcome as prime consideration in the buying.
2.The same is true for purchases of food and other consumables.
3. The purchase of appliances and other consumer goods often involves saftey as the primary concern. Examples would include gas or propane stoves and chainsaws. The consequences of a product failure can be death or serious injury. The same outcomes are probable if you make poor decisions in the purchases of the other items mentioned above. Buying health care is no different.
4. It is a proven fact that state run health care results in state decisions that delay or deny treatment. How does that outcome benefit a citizen?
“In practice, however, if a public option is available, it will probably enjoy taxpayer subsidies. Indeed, even if the initial legislation rejected them, such subsidies would be hard to avoid in the long run. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage giants created by federal law, were once private companies. Yet many investors believed — correctly, as it turned out — that the federal government would stand behind Fannie’s and Freddie’s debts, and this perception gave these companies access to cheap credit.”
So by 2020 or so, when Obambi-care starts circling the drain, we’re looking at a federal bailout of the socialized medicine corporation? That shouldn’t cost too much, right?
Sz – your examples are completely not relevant as the people making those decisions do not do them on teh baisis of life and death. Oh my decision on buying a house involves life and death because lightening minght strike the house. Please come up with examples that relate. As you your last question ” It is a proven fact that state run health care results in state decisions that delay or deny treatment. How does that outcome benefit a citizen?” That is an assertion without a shred of evidence to support that it is a universal problem. I could just as well assert that it is a proven fact that pribvate run health care results in decisions that deny coverage.
Here’s another great quote from the introduction to the Road to Serfdom that seems apropos.
“In the democracies at present, many who sincerely hate all of Nazism’s manifestations are working for ideals whose realization would lead straight to the abhorred tyranny. Most of the people whose views influence developments are in some measure socialists. They believe that our economic life should be ‘consciously directed,’ that we should substitute ‘economic planning’ for the competitive system. Yet is there a greater tragedy imaginable than that, in our endeavor consciously to shape our future in accordance with high ideals, we should in fact unwittingly produce the very opposite of what we have been striving for?”
Modernist and post-modernist, Obama’s scientific socialism will ultimately fail if the armed forces heed the Consitution and not the CoC’s whims.
He is, with his crisis-capitalizing cronies, convinced of modern humanity’s superiority to prior generations’ abilities and attitudes, when basic human nature has not changed in the least since that nature emerged either from God’s hand or the missing link’s birth canal. Those from his mold are dictatorial of their own assessed moral necessities. I pray that liberal sycophancts will abandon him if his path becomes even more illegal.
The Shadow wrote:
Just so your readers do not wallow in their ignorance. Krugman’s observation
=====================
Any citation of Krugman lowers the intelligence of both the quoter and reader by at least 30 points.
============
And this too:
Um, economists have known for 45 years — ever since Kenneth Arrow’s seminal paper — that the standard competitive market model just doesn’t work for health care: adverse selection and moral hazard are so central to the enterprise that nobody, nobody expects free-market principles to be enough. To act all wide-eyed and innocent about these problems at this late date is either remarkably ignorant or simply disingenuous.”
============
This complete absurdity leaves the reader less informed than before he read it. To Paraphrase Reagan… It’s that you know nothing, it’s that you know so much that isn’t so… His words apply to you so incredibly well.
The Shadow, your claim… :
““Even if individual economic decisions were entirely rational, which they’re obviously not, when it comes to life and death, the only rational decision is to do whatever it takes to live. That’s an unusual economic decision.””
Is wholesale wrong. This is because the VAST amount of healthcare dollars spent are not based on imminent life and death situations. They are substantively normal consumer decisions… Which dentist for a cavity, which doctor for your checkup, whom to see when you want a flu shot, and the list is nearly endless. Just like the example of food, you MUST buy food to live, yet our daily decisions are not “life and death” in urgency. Instead, we buy what we need in a competitive market.
In the case of health care, the EXCEPTION where extraordinary expenses are involved in immediate life and death situations, this is why we buy INSURANCE which moderates the financial risk of these extraordinary circumstances. Well, that’s the PROPER role of insurance… Instead of buying insurance to pay for ordinary needs, insurance should pay for the emergency type contingency, and we should pay for our ordinary needs by purchasing it in a competitive free market.
“Let me start with the observation from Hilaire Belloc. In his book The Servile State, Belloc writes that “The control of the production of wealth is the control of human life itself.”’
I expect Obama and his cronies don’t need to read Belloc to understand that. The same idea comes from a source they are much more likely to be familiar with, Vladimir Lenin. “He who does not obey does not eat.” That’s the “Iron Law of Socialism” and, in a complex modern economy with things like health care up for grabs, the principle will be extended to the other necessities of life in such an economy.
In any case we have seen how poorly nationalized health care works in places like Canada and Britain. There is no reason to expect it to work any better here. Indeed, given the importation by the Obama Administration of Chicago Machine political methods and ethics into national politics it is likely that we will get a positively Third World level of incompetence and corruption in any nationalized health scheme here in the USA. I think the Democrats would regard that as a feature, not a bug. It’s wider even than Chicago too. Fannie and Freddie were big cash cows for influential Dems who were given sinecures on their boards and in their managements, who helped bring them to their present status.