Cafe Hayek - Latest Comments in Wrong Right

Re: Wrong Right

Kevin — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 22:59:56 -0000

I can see why people claim a right to health care. It's economics. Let's take Jane and her boyfriend, Joe, for example:

Jane: "Where'd you go?"

Joe: "Out."

It wasn't worth it for Joe to explain to Jane that he went to the mall, then to his ex-girlfriend's house, then to the liquor store, then back to his ex-girlfriend's house. So he summed it up, "Out."

In this case people are correct when they say, "I have a right to health care," if what they really mean is, "It is within my rights to pursue care for my health."

In this case we should respond, "Whatever," which translates into, "Hey, you can do whatever the hell you want to. Frankly I don't give a damn. Just don't violate the rights of someone else when you do it.

If you think that they originally meant that they are entitled to health care at someone else's expense, then you can add the word "man."

"Whatever, man."

Which means all of the above plus "I hope you're done now because you're starting to piss me off. Now get the hell out of my face."

So to those of you who say that you have a right to health care - whatever.

Re: Wrong Right

Russell Nelson — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 21:48:08 -0000

Emily: would you be happier if it was "free markets provide the most efficient allocation of resources"?

Ever tried to pack suitcases into a trunk? Now imagine 300,000,000 trunks and however many suitcases, where the trunks are moving around and the suitcases are changing size. The difficulty of the problem is beyond the imagination, much less any solution to it. The best solution is not going to be found in standardizing suitcases or stopping the trunks from moving. The best solution is to allow the trucks to choose the suitcases that best fit it (Okay, so I broke the metaphor at this point, but you know what I mean.)

Re: Wrong Right

Russell Nelson — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 21:15:32 -0000

1skeptic: Again, you are simply assuming, without presenting any evidence, that politics outdoes the market. You say "I don't think I'll be driving a hard bargain shopping around when I'm lying on stretcher." and this is very true. But neither do you HAVE to bargain hard in a free market. The more free the market, the more cruel businessmen are to each other. Each tries to destroy the other's profits using whatever means necessary. Government interference in the market may make it easier for consumers, but it also makes it easier for businessmen to screw consumers. Yes, I realize that this is counter-intuitive, but if everything that economics produces was always obvious, who would bother studying it?

Re: Wrong Right

tarran — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 15:57:46 -0000

Emily,

Medical care, like any scarce thing will be rationed, since there is not enough of it to exhaust the demand for it. There is no way that everyone can have their own personal physician following them around.

The rationing will either be done through peaceful means ie voluntary exchanges or gifts aka the free market, or it will be performed violently by people who interfere with the voluntary apportioning aka political means.

Here is a book that delves into the flaws of political rationing:

http://www.mises.org/books/...

Re: Wrong Right

Lisa Casanova — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 14:02:56 -0000

Emily,

1) this morning

2) last July (the latest time)

3) Never done this, but have discussed with my husband the possible circumstances under which we might choose to do such a thing for one another. And markets do allow for efficient allocation of resources. What's your point?

Re: Wrong Right

Emily Cragg — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 12:37:47 -0000

"the market allows for efficient allocation of resources"

What kind of stupid statement is this?

When was the last time you had to commute 20 miles to work? When was the last time you had to go to an emergency room? when was the last time you helped someone die?

In your ivory tower, never mind human experience, hey Bugsie?

I take it you guys are somewhat to the right of Attila the Hun.

Emily

Re: Wrong Right

Lisa Casanova — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 11:28:03 -0000

1skeptic,

As someone with a chronic disease, I have to say that although I may be in an emotionally vulnerable position, I am in a rational one also. The two are not mutually exclusive. The mere fact that the decisions that need to be made are difficult does not mean that they need to be made for me. In fact, my health care decisions are some of the most personal and important I make in my life, and the ones where I most emphatically do NOT want paternalistic oversight. As for the idea of "shopping around on while on a stretcher", it's necessary to think about important health care choices before they actually need to be made, and I think it's crazy that we don't. This is why, for example, I have advance directives. In our health care system as it is now, people tend not to plan ahead.

Think about it- you can plan your own funeral to make sure that exactly what you want to happen to you after you die actually happens (and you're not even around to care!). But people don't plan what they want done in case of a major medical emergency. If we could find some way to encourage that, it would be better than some one-size-fits-all government "protection."

Re: Wrong Right

1skeptic — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 11:08:39 -0000

Hi Russell

I am actually quite skeptical of most government intervention. I wouldn't bother coming to this site otherwise. For example, I am not advocating - for example - government provision of healthcare, as in the UK at present, and I am in favour of limited proportional payment by the recipient, to counter moral hazard.

But I don't think I'll be driving a hard bargain shopping around when I'm lying on stretcher. To that extent, some societal protection is necessary, and that is what government can provide.

Re: Wrong Right

Russell Nelson — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 22:31:43 -0000

1skeptic: you must not be very skeptical of government if you assume a priori that government does a better job of protecting consumer interests in the case of emergency healthcare. There isn't any evidence to justify this assumption. There's plenty of evidence that people often don't shop around much -- but that shopkeepers cater to those who do. Why do they do that? Because no shopkeeper is going to let the profits they represent lay on the table.

In essence a free market creates a tragedy of the commons for profits.

Re: Wrong Right

Russell Nelson — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 22:19:03 -0000

It's a rude misunderstanding that causes people to say "Well, nobody wants to be sick, so OF COURSE nobody would overconsume healthcare". Yes, you actually hear people say this. They're idiots, but they vote.

Anything which addresses somebody's unease is subject to overuse. Let's start with doctors. If cost is not a consideration, they'll order up a cat scan instead of an x-ray. Rather than try to conserve the payer's resources, they'll act to conserve their personal resources.

Or look at patients. What do you think a patient will say, when asked "Procedure A is a little less X, but costs more than procedure B" when they're not paying for it? Since cost is not their problem, of course, they're going to ask for procedure B. Nothing but the best for them when insurance is paying for it.

In other words, healthcare isn't at all different. When somebody else is paying the bill, the cost will be infinite.

Re: Wrong Right

1skeptic — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 15:37:27 -0000

I hate commenting on blogs. "I agree" or "wow, thanks, you really opened my mind there" doesn't seem to be worth posting. On the other hand...

How healthcare is different, in my opinion:

(1) Suppose all healthcare was free.Would you be overdosing on paracetamol?

(2) Can homo economicus plan not to be sick - say not to have cancer, and act accordingly?

(3) Can you beat the medical insurance companies at contract interpretation or enforcement in courts? Just to spice it up, assume at this point you have a medical condition.

(4) At the point where you badly need medical attention, do you find yourself in a rational position, or an emotionally (if not just physically) vulnerable position?

Given the above, there are good reasons for having a well-defined regulatory framework for healthcare provision.

In the real world the producers end up capturing the regulators, so healthcare that is mostly taxpayer funded but minimally shared in cost by the recipient - as in france - could be the optimal solution.

As for the CSM article

(a)

"With food free at the point of delivery, consumers would take all that they can carry. People would quickly learn that if they don't grab as much food as possible today, the store might run out of the foods that their families need tomorrow. "

What is the healthcare equivalent - will people be queing up for ECG / EMR scans even if they don't need them at that moment? Healthcase can't always be hoarded, and can have zero value to most healthy people.

(b)

"This situation leads to monstrously inefficient consumption of healthcare. Some people consume too much, while many others with more pressing needs do without."

Sounds suspiciously socialist in sentiment. To each according to his 'real' needs? from the market?

(c)"Because the wasteful consumption caused by heavily subsidized access"

Some convincing examples of this in the article would have been good. Not to do with food or footwear or whatever, but healthcare as we know it.

Re: Wrong Right

cpurick — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 09:32:23 -0000

"the US is already paying for universal health coverage. It's just not getting to all the peole who need it."

And it never will get to everyone who needs it -- not under any model. The only choice is whether we ration it by political means, or through voluntary means on a market.

The current problem calls for less government, not more.

Re: Wrong Right

dale — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 07:50:03 -0000

the US is already paying for universal health coverage. It's just not getting to all the peole who need it.

This isn't just an issue of ideology- it's

also an issue of economic rationality.

Re: Wrong Right

Russell Nelson — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 23:41:41 -0000

Daniel: Bruce will tell us that there's no need to ration health care, because nobody actually WANTS health care. All we have to do is buy just enough health care to cover people's illnesses and that will be enough. You don't REALLY think that people would be so irresponsible as to take worse care of themselves just because health care is free, do you? Oh, you do?? You must be one of those loony SORE folks who thinks that demand slopes downwards!

We now return you to our sarcasm-free postings.

Re: Wrong Right

Russell Nelson — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 23:37:38 -0000

cpurick: I have met some honest leftists who are willing to pay higher taxes. Of course, they do it because they believe in progressive taxation .... which means that in order to soak the rich, they're willing to get themselves a little wet.

Otherwise, the situation is exactly as you portray it. Leftists don't think the government is just spending their own money for them. They think that "the rich" are paying for everything -- and that that has no cost to them.

Re: Wrong Right

Russell Nelson — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 23:34:30 -0000

Bruce, when were "the problems associated with large masses of uneducated (not merely under-educated) people living in my community." a problem? You see, you are simply waving your hands at the problem of educating uneducated people, and presuming that because government schools *intend* to educate everyone, that everyone actually becomes educated. I claim that that problem has never been solved, but instead that government schools sacrifice the education of the middle to attempting the education of the least. It's a great idea to educate everyone, but you're ignoring the cost (but that's why you're a leftist -- leftists don't care what it costs other people for them to feel good about themselves.)

Two can make unfair comments, you know.

Re: Wrong Right

MesaEconoGuy — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 17:42:11 -0000

This Bruce Hall is very confused.

Apparently, he thinks that all that is not expressly prohibited constitutionally, and may potentially be “desirable,” is therefore “constitutional.”

This is false.

Along with numerous bad examples, he cites a very strange cost/benefit scenario whereby the overall pooled cost of universal healthcare is somehow mysteriously less than the apparent individual consumer cost thereof, with government intervention.

By this logic, and potential political to be had in this bonanza, virtually any public good could be rationalized to be “for the public good,” [under a proper interpretation of the “General Welfare” clause] or in other words “to each according to his needs” [K. Marx], and we would be buying food through our employer now, as well. Or possibly the government.

This is stupid.

Luckily, during the Depression, Justices McReynolds and Butler, in their Helvering v. Davis (1937, 301 US 619) dissent, saw through this stupidity, which modern liberals like Bruce Hall now wish to rehash:

“[The general welfare clause] is not a substantive general power to provide for the welfare of the United States, but is a limitation on the grant of power to raise money by taxes, duties, and imports……If it were otherwise, all the rest of the Constitution, consisting of carefully enumerated and cautiously guarded grants of specific powers, would have been useless, if not delusive.”

It also completely ignores moral hazard introduced by government intervention in this area.

Good intentions………

Re: Wrong Right

cpurick — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:42:53 -0000

Bruce, you should look at your own words.

"Now substitute "education" for "health care"."

"Now substitute "social security" for "health care"."

Indeed, education and social security -- and virtually every "social program" continues to remain an issue. Despite the billions of dollars redistributed in the name of solving these problems, they persist -- as they always will. Admit it: even you know that education will *never* be solved. The war on poverty will *never* be won. So what is the real point?

When healthcare is socialized, it too will *never* stop being an issue. Always, there will be some reason why it just needs a little more money to finally be "fixed." Frankly, I'm sick of this crap -- are you really so foolish as to fall for it? Hogwash!

And tarran was right about energy, shelter, and food. In a few years we'll be having this argument about how food should be a right, and you'll try to tell everyone to "substitute "health care" for "food." And the only difference will be that the nay-sayers will be able to show that socialized healthcare is no less a failure than social security, education and welfare.

"what kind of society are we satisfied with? One that creates great economic opportunity, but says "too bad" to the less fortunate... or one that creates great economic opportunity, but has compassion for the less fortunate. Great if the latter can be done by private effort... but the record there is lacking credibility."

There is a big difference between "the less fortunate" and "the less deserving." The private effort has its own way of judging who is really counted among the former and who is really counted among the latter.

On the other hand, public welfare defines only the politically-correct "criteria" that people must meet in order to qualify for assistance. It then becomes a simple -- and profitable -- matter (indeed, a complete full-time *occupation*) for "the less deserving" to structure their lives in order to qualify for the hand out of the day. Government simply does not have the incentives or the political fortitude to withhold services from elective free riders.

I think you ought to do a little soul-searching about your motives. Do you honestly seek to invest your hard-earned into government assistance that's free for the taking, or is there, perhaps, a blue streak in you that thinks somebody else -- somebody who's "too rich" or "more able to pay" should be picking up the tab?

I may actually have met a Democrat or two who felt his own taxes weren't high enough. But I have yet to meet one with the conviction to give the difference to the government voluntarily. Always, they expect someone else to pick up the slack.

Let me tell you something: if you're educated enough to read Cafe Hayek, then on tax day you will be classified as "filthy rich." Congratulations.

Re: Wrong Right

JohnDewey — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:32:25 -0000

Bruce Hall: " One that creates great economic opportunity, but says "too bad" to the less fortunate... or one that creates great economic opportunity, but has compassion for the less fortunate. Great if the latter can be done by private effort... but the record there is lacking credibility."

Do you honestly believe that New Deal and Great Society socialism still has any credibility? Is it not apparent that decades of social spending simply left more people than ever dependent on the government's ability to take from the productive and transfer to the non-productive?

The most successful federal action to lift the impoverished has been the the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 - aka the Welfare Reform Act. Even the liberal magazine New Republic defends this legislation:

"A broad consensus now holds that welfare reform was certainly not a disaster--and that it may, in fact, have worked much as its designers had hoped."

Re: Wrong Right

Daniel — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:20:20 -0000

Bruce,

I agree that one should not base policy on anecdotal evidence, which is why I pointed out my examples were anecdotal.

I assume that when you linked to an op-ed article from a UVA economics professor asking for more funds your point is that economic professors are hypocrits who want more public funds for ourselve yet aren't willing to help others. That economic professors are human and as such some (I won't say all)engage in rent-seeking behavior is a valid point. But whether health-care is a right or an entitlement is a separate question from whether or not public funding education (and social security) is proper.

You say my observations of the Canadian system are incorrect because we don't have to adopt universal health care such as Canada. That's true, we don't. What do you propose instead? My point is that health care, like other goods, involve scarce resources. So the resources must be rationed in some way. Apparently you don't like the current system of rationing. What other mechanism, besides the market, should be used to ration health care?

Re: Wrong Right

TGGP — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 09:17:55 -0000

Bruce, it seems like you are saying anything the public decides to do through it's elected representatives is exempt from criticism. Is idiocy no longer idiocy once over 50% of the voters believe it?

Re: Wrong Right

Scott — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 08:56:05 -0000

Bruce,

If you governments provide social security, it should come as no surprise that there will be an increase in people who don't save on their own.

If you governments provide "free" health care, it should come as no surprise that there will be an increase in people who don't purchase health insurance.

If you governments provide welfare, it should come as no surprise that there will be an increase in people who choose not to work but rather live off others.

You accuse most of us of having an "I've got mine" attitude and imply that we're selfish, but how is it any more selfish than an "I want yours" attitude. The problem with most social programs is that while they may start with good intentions, we live in a world of real consequences. There is nothing noble about reaching into the pockets of your neighbor to pay for something you believe in.

Re: Wrong Right

Randy — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 08:02:33 -0000

Bruce,

We've given lots of money, but the progressives keep telling us the problems are getting worse. You see the trap don't you? If the problems aren't really getting worse, then what is the need for more money? And if the problems are getting worse, then why on earth would we throw good money after bad? From now on, the guilt trip approach isn't going to work. It is now up to the progressives to prove that they can make some real progress with the money they have. When they do that, then we can talk about giving more.

Re: Wrong Right

Bruce Hall — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 06:36:53 -0000

I know I'm swimming upstream with this crowd, but here goes:

There is a difference between what is a "constitutional right" and what is considered "desirable" by a country (and in the U.S., that is determined by the political process so no b.s. about there not being a social will or some other nonsense).

As individuals, we may object to the process, but that is "constitutional" and your objection is "personal."

Social Security may not be your idea of the "best" way to secure a retirement, but our elected representatives decided it was a good way to ensure that there was a minimum level of support. Now you can argue that charities could hand that. Not likely. Charities did a shitty job of that before social security. By and large, as individuals, Americans have demonstrated an "I got mine" attitude and used charitable giving for tax deductions.

Public education not only *may* provide the only reliable method of educating all children... it is the only reliable method. For those who can afford a private school, great. By our economy is best served in the long run by public education.

Now to the point.... The current situation of increasingly unaffordable health care is not simply a matter of more people vying for scarce resources. The medical profession has been attacked by the legal profession over decades resulting in excessive insurance costs (liability) and dissuaded many from areas such as family practice. My own family physician (actually the largest practice in the area) has signs all over the office protesting what the lawyers are doing and what the state allows. Hey, lawyers are just good businessmen taking advantage of an opportunity... that hurts the rest of us. They have a "constitutional" right to do so.

Consequently, health care (which has improved significantly as a result of technology) is significantly more costly. But to blame it on more people wanting health care is spurious. And to say that because it is artificially more costly (technology improvements USUALLY lead to lower costs) because of the legal profession and our lawsuit-happy environment, we should ignore the plight of those who are now priced out of health care, is a lot like saying because education is getting so expensive, we should get rid of public education and let only those who can afford it get it.

All of the arguments against some form of health care support for those who cannot pay revolve around the notion that "it will cost ME more" rather than what might be best for the commonwealth. Well, public education costs ME more, but it also provides the basis for avoiding the problems associated with large masses of uneducated (not merely under-educated) people living in my community.

Likewise, I am not thrilled about 35 million people living in poverty in the U.S. having no way to pay for their health care and then tying up expensive emergency rooms when a simple clinic visit would suffice. But, hey, the hospitals have to treat them; private clinics don't have to... and they don't operate under principles of charity.

I get it guys... it's more expensive for ME.

Re: Wrong Right

Russell Nelson — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 21:50:46 -0000

Bruce, it is indeed black and white. You complain that private charities don't do enough. They don't, because the government has already drunk at the trough. This drains private charities of resources. It long bothered me that we have government solving problems that used to be solved by private charities. What happened to them? One conclusion (yours) is that they weren't good enough. Another conclusion is widespread intellectual error: socialism was truly seen as the way of the future. Why bother paying private charities when you can just raise taxes and accomplish the goal through the government? There was no answer until public choice theories were developed.

The other thing you don't seem to realize that that poverty is not about money. People who are poor will remain poor if you simply give them money. They are poor because all of their choices suck. Money CAN improve people's choices, but it doesn't necessarily do so. A drug addict with money is still a drug addict. A criminal with money is still a criminal.