Wednesday, April 28, 2004
Unwelcome rehashing
[Thomas Sowell, "Hillary's back!," Townhall, 27 April 2004.]
Economist John Maynard Keynes once referred to the power of long-dead ideas over present day life:
The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.
Apparently, the same is true of politicians in Washington. Thomas Sowell is hardly pleased to see that "HillaryCare" is making headlines again a decade after its original downfall:
A huge headline on the front of a recent issue of the New York Times Magazine said more than they intended: "Now Are We Ready to Talk About Health Care?" Inside was an article with the same title by Hillary Clinton.
The casual arrogance of that question is staggering. We talked endlessly about Hillary's proposed government-run medical system a decade ago and decided against it for many reasons. Now this re-run of the same issues proceeds as if the question is whether the rest of us are "ready" to talk about such things.
Senator Clinton parades the usual litany of reasons why the government should run the medical system, beginning with "soaring health costs and millions of uninsured." But, not only does she offer nothing that will actually reduce those costs, she declares that "our mental health delivery system is underfinanced."
"Universal health care" is a lovely phrase with political resonance in some quarters. But what does it mean concretely?
First of all, since people differ in what they want, nothing can be "universal" without being mandatory. In other words, we are talking about forcing people to belong to whatever program the politicians and bureaucrats come up with, regardless of what the people themselves might prefer.
What the lovely phrase "universal health care" boils down to is politicians and bureaucrats forcing people to get their medical treatment and pharmaceutical drugs the way the politicians and bureaucrats decide.
Somehow, the notion seems to be insinuated that the government can do it cheaper and better. But name three things that the government does cheaper and better than private individuals and organizations. It would be no trick at all to name dozens of things that the government does worse and at higher costs.
How many of those who gush about "universal health care" know that the countries which have it also have waiting times to get treated that are several times as long as people in America wait to see a specialist or get an operation? Waiting not only means longer suffering, it can also mean that a treatable disease can become untreatable -- or even fatal -- because of the delay.
But what are mere facts compared to a lovely phrase like "universal health care"?
[Thomas Sowell, "Hillary's back!," Townhall, 27 April 2004.]
Economist John Maynard Keynes once referred to the power of long-dead ideas over present day life:
The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.
Apparently, the same is true of politicians in Washington. Thomas Sowell is hardly pleased to see that "HillaryCare" is making headlines again a decade after its original downfall:
A huge headline on the front of a recent issue of the New York Times Magazine said more than they intended: "Now Are We Ready to Talk About Health Care?" Inside was an article with the same title by Hillary Clinton.
The casual arrogance of that question is staggering. We talked endlessly about Hillary's proposed government-run medical system a decade ago and decided against it for many reasons. Now this re-run of the same issues proceeds as if the question is whether the rest of us are "ready" to talk about such things.
Senator Clinton parades the usual litany of reasons why the government should run the medical system, beginning with "soaring health costs and millions of uninsured." But, not only does she offer nothing that will actually reduce those costs, she declares that "our mental health delivery system is underfinanced."
"Universal health care" is a lovely phrase with political resonance in some quarters. But what does it mean concretely?
First of all, since people differ in what they want, nothing can be "universal" without being mandatory. In other words, we are talking about forcing people to belong to whatever program the politicians and bureaucrats come up with, regardless of what the people themselves might prefer.
What the lovely phrase "universal health care" boils down to is politicians and bureaucrats forcing people to get their medical treatment and pharmaceutical drugs the way the politicians and bureaucrats decide.
Somehow, the notion seems to be insinuated that the government can do it cheaper and better. But name three things that the government does cheaper and better than private individuals and organizations. It would be no trick at all to name dozens of things that the government does worse and at higher costs.
How many of those who gush about "universal health care" know that the countries which have it also have waiting times to get treated that are several times as long as people in America wait to see a specialist or get an operation? Waiting not only means longer suffering, it can also mean that a treatable disease can become untreatable -- or even fatal -- because of the delay.
But what are mere facts compared to a lovely phrase like "universal health care"?
Comments:
Post a Comment
