Posted by
Andrews on Friday, November 27, 2009 1:15:39 PM
I found an article today that shows exactly why the right always loses political battles. That essay is
Charles Krauthammer's about medical reform. The problem is not his specific measures. Most of them are relatively sensible, tort reform, interstate competition, and an end to the tax breaks on health insurance. As I argue in "
High Cost of Medical Care" and elsewhere, they will not solve the problem, but they will help somewhat.
However, Dr. Krauthammer then gives away the game by writing the following:
Insuring the uninsured is a moral imperative.
This is why we constantly lose political battles. We grant the left the moral high ground, admit that their position is the moral one, then try to limit it.
That is a losing formula. After all, if the left's position (insure the poor) is the moral one, then putting limits on it is less moral, and so we are granting that the left is both more consistent and more moral than we are. Why wouldn't the voters reject us.
I would argue Dr. Krauthammer is wrong on three counts.
First, there is no moral imperative to insure anyone. In fact, providing basic health care through insurance is a remarkably inefficient system, yet another legacy of wage controls in World War II. We would be much better off were insurance to return to catastrophic coverage and individuals pay for normal coverage out of pocket. The price competition would drive prices down, unlike the present system. ("
Redefining Insurance... To Actually BE Insurance", "
The Insurance Sham", "
Cosmetic Surgery, Lasik, Dentistry and Health Care Reform", "
Why Health Insurance Isn't Insurance and Related Topics")
Second, assuming there is a moral imperative to provide health care, not insurance, to the poor, then why is it to be provided through the government? The government is the least efficient way to provide most services. So, granting it is an imperative, which I don't, why would that suggest using the least efficient tool to do so? ( "
Utopianism and Disaster","
Symmetry and Asymmetry in Government", "
Fairness and the Free Market","
Greed Versus Evil","
The Inherent Disappointment of Authoritarianism", "
The Inevitability of Bureaucratic Management in Government Enterprises", "
When Help Hurts", "
Bad Economics Part 5", "
Bad Economics Part 6")
Finally, if we want the poor to have health care, and other things beside, isn't the best way to do that to make them less poor? Or even rich? If so, then the answer is clearly to get the government out of the way, as that leads to the most rapid wealth creation. And, if the poor become middle class, or rich, then they can buy their own health care, especially if price competition drives down prices. ("
Medical Reform, An Overview","
Government Efficiency","
Misunderstanding Profits","
Cutting "Costs"", "
Two Examples of "Inefficiency" in Capitalism", "
Bad Economics Part 2")
Actually, that is a fourth point. We may have an obligation to help the poor, but does that mean giving all of them everything instantly? Or does it mean setting conditions so that in the future they gain everything? If we insist that we solve every problem, now, completely, I am afraid we will solve nothing. ("
Utopianism and Disaster") Yet that seems to be Krauthammer's, and the left's, argument.
I just cannot agree.