Irresponsible and Culpable
by Don Cooper
by
Don Cooper
Recently by Don Cooper: Runaway
Clauses of the Constitution
I can’t turn
a news channel on lately without seeing yet another legislator getting
angry at his constituents because they understand too much and won’t
simply acquiesce to their illustrious leader’s socialized healthcare
debacle.
This is a perfect
example of the federal government’s attitude towards its citizenship:
how dare you question the all-powerful Oz? They act as if somehow
they’re not our representatives but rather our lords. That somehow
by being in Washington they’ve been blessed with some sort of insight
that the rest of us don’t posses. That they have been empowered
with the ability to understand these complex issues when we can
not and so therefore they will deal with them for us and we are
to be thankful for it.
Although I
and many, many others have written and continue to write about the
economic effects of socialized healthcare – and any government intervention
really – I think they deserve repeating.
The necessary
economic education to be able to understand this issue can be learned
in a first-year business class at any university. Or even in a high
school civics class for that matter. The details of any healthcare
bill are irrelevant because the economics of its implementation
are the same regardless. President Obama’s lack of this knowledge,
or worse, his conscience decision to ignore it, is irresponsible
on his and his administration’s part.
Mr. Rothbard's
point is so correct: "it’s not a crime to be ignorant of economics…but
it is irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic
issues while remaining in that state of ignorance."
The main points
are:
- The 47 million
number of supposed uninsured Americans come from a census and
is grossly overstated.
- There is
no constitutional nor moral authority for the government to tax
Peter to pay for healthcare for Paul. If it does then Paul may
be better off but Peter is worse off and social welfare declines.
- The government
does not have the incentive to work efficiently since it does
not compete with anyone. Therefore the quality of any good or
service that that government provides will be far less than its
complement in the private sector.
- The government
is a bureaucratic behemoth. Everybody along the bureaucrat trail
has to be fed. Therefore, any good or service that the government
provides will cost significantly more than if provided in the
private sector.
- The government
will try and control healthcare costs causing a severe excess
of demand and consequently a shortage of healthcare services.
Healthcare will then be rationed.
President Obama
and his lackeys continue to irresponsibly throw around the information
that there are 47 million Americans who can’t afford healthcare.
That’s simply
not true. That number comes from census data. On the census
they didn’t ask if people couldn’t afford healthcare but rather
if they had healthcare. And if not then for what period of time
haven’t they had healthcare etc… For purposes of trying to convince
people that a grave situation exists in our country that simply
doesn’t, the president is omitting information from those numbers
(also known as lying to us dumb country folk).
Many of those
people have incomes that are more than sufficient to afford healthcare
but simply choose not to buy it. Many of those are young people
who feel that their need for catastrophic healthcare coverage doesn’t
warrant the cost. It includes illegal aliens as well as many who
are in job transition and will have healthcare again within a few
months. Many are people who are already covered by existing private
and government indigent healthcare programs like Medicare, Medicaid,
Social Security and others.
The actual
numbers might be closer to half of Obama’s 47 million or even less.
Secondly, I
challenge anyone to find the clause in the constitution that even
comes close to giving the president or our legislature the legal
authority to tax us and pay for healthcare. For those irresponsible
enough to try and abusively interpret Article I, Section 8, clause
1 to mean that the legislation has the authority to tax us and spend
it on ANYTHING it wants to "provide for the common welfare"
I offer the following simple economic analysis:
One dollar
taken from Peter and passed through the government machine comes
out much less than a dollar for Paul. Therefore, in order to pay
for one dollar’s worth of healthcare for Paul the government machine
must also tax Mary and David and many others. So Paul is better
off because he now receives one dollar’s worth of healthcare but
Peter and Mary and David and the others are worse off because they
are now poorer than they were before and must go without something
that they were planning on spending that dollar on. Therefore the
net change in social welfare is always negative and in direct violation
in fact of the "Tax and Spend clause." The only way for
the government to provide for the general welfare is to get out
of the way, enforce contracts and let people do what they want with
their money.
Anyone who
as ever worked for the state or federal government knows first-hand
the inefficiencies and higher
costs associated with government work. Since the government
does not have to worry about being solvent, if they need more money
they simply tax us more, borrow more and have the fed print more
of it, they don’t operate under the same economic incentives as
a private firm.
Government
salaries are not determined by the supply and demand of labor but
rather they are legislated. There are folks with high school educations
making $80,000?$100,000/yr simply because they’ve been working
there for 30 years and a salary increase has always been included
in their agency’s annual budget request bill. These people’s true
market value would most likely be minimum wage or slightly better
if they had to work for a living.
Finally, since
the true market value of the healthcare services that the government
will try to provide will be much higher than the artificially low
levels that the government will mandate and since people will perceive
their healthcare as being "free" and will therefore go
to the doctor now for every little insignificant thing, there will
be a huge shortage of healthcare services available. Doctor’s offices
and hospital waiting rooms will be overcrowded.
This is where
Obama’s true ignorance and inexperience shines. Having lived and
worked for years in no less than three other countries which have
socialized healthcare: (UK, Germany, and Romania) I can verify without
a doubt that socialized healthcare is rationed. If you need a prescription
for an antibiotic or shots for your kids then you will probably
be okay. But that’s not why we have healthcare insurance. We have
it to cover the catastrophic healthcare issues such as broken bones,
acute and chronic health conditions and for these things you will
wait in line.
While living
in Germany I needed an operation on my left hand. The condition
was such that I had to quit any and all activities that put excessive
strain on my left hand. I had to wait from August until December
for the operation. During that time the condition worsened and to
this day I still have numbness in it.
In Romania,
a member of the EU, all one needs to know is that when it comes
to socialized healthcare, you get what you pay for. So one can imagine
what kind of healthcare you get when it’s "free." True
story: my brother-in-law almost died of appendicitis due to a mis-diagnosis.
When people work for the government and their wages are controlled
they simply have no more incentive to take pride in their work.
They no longer innovate nor invent. The industry will stagnate.
While the politicians
will squabble about the details of their plans, they are irrelevant.
The above economic effects are immutable. They are not theory but
rather fact. There exists a vast body of economic history to bear
them out. They are in practice today all around us in the form of
current federal economic programs. To ignore them is irresponsible
and culpable. To be ignorant of them and remain decidedly in that
ignorance is impeachable.
August
11, 2009
Don Cooper
[send him mail] is a Florida
native, Navy veteran and economist living and working in the Midwest.
Copyright
© 2009 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in
part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Don
Cooper Archives
|