|Not With My Kid You Don't||The End of Socialized Medicine?|
by Christopher Chantrill
October 24, 2007 at 10:06 am
LAST WEEK President Bush successfully stopped the expansion of S-CHIP into the liberal slacker classes.
After last week the creative children of well-to-do parents who would rather buy fancy cars than pay for health insurance will have to pause for a moment.
For this important ethical and moral victory the president should be celebrated forever as one of our greatest presidents.
Meanwhile the Democrats showed once again that they cared about the children.
Never mind that its all just a huge bluff.
Government is there to protect us from enemies foreign and domestic. It doesnt do that job very well, but its better than the alternative.
Everything else is fluff., and very expensive fluff at that. The newly legislated fluff always looks wonderful. But after a while it always turns into rotting bureaucratic sludge.
Fluff? Health care and education are fluff? Lets take a look at the great heads of government spending for FY 2008 on usgovernmentspending.com. The numbers are all budgeted and estimated.
United States Federal, State, and Local Government Spending
Fiscal Year 2008
Amounts in billions of dollars
Health Care: $916.5
We are talking about all levels of government, of course.
Heres the dirty little secret that explains why its mostly fluff. All that money we spend on health care and educationwe dont know if it is doing any good.
You start to get the picture from Rising Life Expectancy by James C. Riley. There are six areas for reducing mortality: public health, medicine, wealth and income, nutrition, behavior, and education, he writes. But researchers find it very difficult to separate out the significance of each area. One thing is certain; the importance of medicine has been greatly over-hyped. Needless to say, more research is needed.
Robin Hanson of CATO confirms Rileys finding. He writes that we dont have a clue about the effectiveness of health care. Although health experts know this they are nervous about telling us. Anyway we just dont believe them.
Non-health-policy experts are probably shocked to hear my claims. Most students in my eight years of teaching health economics have simply not believed me, even after a semester of reviewing the evidence.
Heres an example of what Hanson is talking about. RAND health insurance study in 1978-82 assigned two thousand families to various health insurance plans from free to full price. The result was inconclusive; the health of some poor families even got worse after they got free health insurance.
What is going on?
The key to understanding health-care, Hanson suggests, comes after the hyphen. It is all about care, not health.
[H]umans long ago evolved a tendency to use medicine to show that we care, rather than just to get healthy.
That was the point that the Democrats were trying to make over the S-CHIP expansion. It wasnt the money. They just wanted to show that they cared.
This is the brilliant idea that supports the welfare state. The welfare state doesnt actually do anything; it just shows that we care.
Look at the top three heads of government spending above. If the government didnt have its pension programs then people would just knuckle down and save some more. Families that couldnt save enough would coalesce into multigenerational compounds.
If the government didnt have its health programs then people would be a lot more careful about their health and their medical spending, and the overall life-expectancy in the United States probably wouldnt change.
If the government didnt have its education programs then people would spend their own money on education. Most parents can probably afford the three-to-four years of the schooling it takes to achieve basic literacy and numeracy. They would quickly that most children shouldnt go to high school. Instead they should get jobs!
But how would we show that we care?
Arthur Brooks has shown in Who Really Cares that government charity approximately displaces private charity one-for-one. It costs more, of course, because with government charity you have to pay for all the bureaucracy and the inefficiency, not to mention the gigantic information technology systems to keep track of all those health-and-welfare programs.
Heres an idea for young up-and-coming conservative thinkers. The current welfare state is unjust to women. It crowds out and marginalizes their natural charitable instincts and prevents them from being all they can be and demonstrating that we care.
In the welfare state only politicians and activists get to show that they care.
Think about it. The glorious feminist revolution has pitched women out of their local face-to-face neighborhood communities. It has converted them from caring friends and neighbors into helping professionals. In the old days they used to converse and network to help each other and show that they cared. Now they are stuck in gigantic social-service bureaucracies where their natural caring instincts and emotions are rigidly controlled by a huge rule-book.
How can anyone endure for a moment longer this monstrously unjust and unnatural system?
Buy his Road to the Middle Class.
When we began first to preach these things, the people appeared as awakened from the sleep of agesthey seemed to see for the first time that they were responsible beings, and that a refusal to use the means appointed was a damning sin.
Finke, Stark, The Churching of America, 1776-1990
In 1911... at least nine million of the 12 million covered by national insurance were already members of voluntary sick pay schemes. A similar proportion were also eligible for medical care.
Green, Reinventing Civil Society
We have met with families in which for weeks together, not an article of sustenance but potatoes had been used; yet for every child the hard-earned sum was provided to send them to school.
E. G. West, Education and the State
Law being too tenuous to rely upon in [Ulster and the Scottish borderlands], people developed patterns of settling differences by personal fighting and family feuds.
Thomas Sowell, Conquests and Cultures
The primary thing to keep in mind about German and Russian thought since
1800 is that it takes for granted that the Cartesian, Lockean or Humean scientific and
philosophical conception of man and nature... has been shown by indisputable evidence to be
F.S.C. Northrop, The Meeting of East and West
Inquiry does not start unless there is a problem... It is the problem and its
characteristics revealed by analysis which guides one first to the relevant facts and then,
once the relevant facts are known, to the relevant hypotheses.
F.S.C. Northrop, The Logic of the Sciences and the Humanities
But I saw a man yesterday who knows a fellow who had it from a chappie
that said that Urquhart had been dipping himself a bit recklessly off the deep end.
Dorothy L. Sayers, Strong Poison
I mean three systems in one: a predominantly market economy; a polity respectful of the rights of the individual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and a system of cultural institutions moved by ideals of liberty and justice for all.
In short, three dynamic and converging systems functioning as one: a democratic polity, an economy based on markets and incentives, and a moral-cultural system which is plural and, in the largest sense, liberal.
Michael Novak, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism
The incentive that impels a man to act is always some uneasiness...
But to make a man act [he must have]
the expectation that purposeful behavior has the power to remove
or at least to alleviate the felt uneasiness.
Ludwig von Mises, Human Action
[In the] higher Christian churches... they saunter through the liturgy like Mohawks along a string of scaffolding who have long since forgotten their danger. If God were to blast such a service to bits, the congregation would be, I believe, genuinely shocked. But in the low churches you expect it every minute.
Annie Dillard, Holy the Firm
When we received Christ, Phil added, all of a sudden we now had a rule book to go by, and when we had problems the preacher was right there to give us the answers.
James M. Ault, Jr., Spirit and Flesh
The recognition and integration of extralegal property rights [in the Homestead Act] was a key element in the United States becoming the most important market economy and producer of capital in the world.
Hernando de Soto, The Mystery of Capital