Posted by
Andrews on Friday, September 11, 2009 2:41:55 AM
I see that in his speech Obama once again repeated the silly mistake of arguing that government insurance would be more efficient as it would "cut costs" and "save money" by not having to pay dividends and all those other "costs" of private companies. I was going to repeat myself and explain why this is wrong, but it is far easier to simply direct readers to "
Cutting "Costs"" and "
Misunderstanding Profits". In addition, I would suggest reading "
Bureaucratic Management" , "
The Bureaucratic Mind", "
The Inevitability of Bureaucratic Management in Government Enterprises" and "
Killing the Railroads", all of which argue that government management is inherently inferior, at least in ventures traditionally run for profit, due to extremely different sets of incentives. ("
Government Efficiency" gives specific examples as well.) As well as "
Who Will Decide" which discusses the problem of rationing and the reason a market solution will produce superior results. And finally, the post "
The Insurance Sham", which argues that government insurance is no insurance at all, as well as "
Public Insurance" which argues that any "public option" is nothing but a step along the path to total nationalization, the so-called "single payer" option.
As that is a rather lengthy list of sources, I may come back to this topic later, consolidating all of the essays into one comprehensive rebuttal, but for the moment, I think this list is the best refutation I can provide. Though I suppose I should, in fairness, at least provide my own proposal for reforming medical costs, and so I would direct readers to "
High Cost of Medical Care", which explains the high costs, "
Clarification of My Argument for a Free Market in Medicine" which explains why real competition is the proper way to improve the delivery of health care, and "
My Health Care Plan" which covers my (somewhat sarcastic) proposal to provide insurance for everyone. In addition, readers may benefit from reading "
Life Is Not Fair - And Trying To Make It So Makes Things Worse", "
Private Charity", "
Private Charity Take Two", "
Liberalism's False Dichotomy
", "
Greed Versus Evil", "
Fairness and the Free Market" and "
Planning For Imperfection", all of which provide details which explain my position.
POSTSCRIPT
I have noticed in writing my refutations, I have had to make only general criticisms, as there has been no single specific plan put forward. This is a rather clever tactic on the part of the president, as any specific criticism can be refuted by simply pointing to another plan. On the other hand, it does make the Democrats seem both dishonest and not terribly committed to any plan,as they have yet to make up their minds. In the end, I think the rhetorical advantage will be much less beneficial than the appearance of dishonesty and lack of commitment will be harmful.
POSTSCRIPT II
For those who promote "health care reform", I would suggest they read "
The Inherent Disappointment of Authoritarianism", as it points out a big problem many pushing authoritarian solutions often overlook. Being so caught up in imagining the "reform" will be precisely the one they imagine, they forget that they will not be the one making the laws. In a way, this mirrors the Obama election strategy, taking no firm stands so everyone can project upon him their own beliefs ("
The Candidate as Inkblot"). Now he is refusing to promote a single health care reform so everyone can once again imagine their favorite program will be the one passed. Though hopefully after buying into the vague promises of the election campaign many have become wise to this trick.
POSTSCRIPT III
By the way, it should go without saying, buy I am quite troubled by those who argue Republicans need to promote their own "health care reform plan" in order to counter the Democrat's plan. If the Nazi party were to get votes in the US would we have to propose our own final solution to counter theirs? Do we fight communism by promoting our own plan for income equalization? (Sadly some Republicans might answer "yes" to the second -- see "
Conservatives and the "Big Picture"", "
The Party of 'No'?", "
Activism As The Only Acceptable Position?
", "
I Told You So!", "
The Big Lie", "
The Big Lie Part II", "
A Question" and "
Don't Panic".)
If we are the party of private enterprise and small government, then we need to be just that. Just because misguided individuals might support government providing services it should not does not mean we need to abandon our principles to garner votes, or make some sort of sham "reform", trying to smuggle in our principles while appearing to be supporting the principles of the opposition. We should recall the successes of Reagan and the 1994 congressional class and recall that they won by sticking to their principles, not by pretending to be Democrats.