I’ve long believed — for reasons very similar to, but less refined than, those offered by my colleague Bryan Caplan — that the modern state brings out the children in us.
Thomas Sowell thinks so, too. Here’s a slice of his latest column:
The most childish of all the things being said in the august setting of a joint session of Congress last week was that millions of people can be added to the government’s health insurance plan without increasing the federal deficit at all.
If the president of the United States could do that, it is hard to imagine what he would do as an encore. Walking on water would be an anticlimax.
What is equally childish is the notion that the great majority of Americans, who have medical insurance and who say they are satisfied with it, should be panicked and stampeded into supporting vast increases in the arbitrary power of Washington bureaucrats to take medical decisions out of the hands of their doctors – all ostensibly because a minority of Americans do not have medical insurance.
Share
{ 13 comments }
I can’t remember which of the illustrious participants stated some weeks ago on this subject, but he was dead on.
Paraphrasing: If there is 800 billion in savings to be used to pay for Obamacare, savings which can be found by identifying and cutting the pork in existing programs. Find those savings first, show it to us, identify those saving, cut those programs, produce the evidence of the savings, then come back with a suggested program
Succinct and sensible.
I’m confused by Sowell – which medical decisions are being taken out of the hands of doctors?
“the great majority of Americans, who have medical insurance and who say they are satisfied with it”Should they be happy with it? If insurance was cheaper wages would be higher. I agree with the logic here at Cafe Hayek on how to bring the costs of medical care and insurance down; however, that does not mean the people who say they are satisfied with their insurance know what they are talking about. They would be happier with cheaper insurance and higher wages I am guessing.
I agree. And the idea that since a majority is happy the status quo should be preserved is a fallacy. Who cares what the majority thinks? I am not a huge fan of Sowell. His views on immigration are appalling to me, and he too often jumps to conclusions and uses really shallow evidence.
The people who say they are happy with their health insurance don’t know what they are talking about?
Quite a statement, and it requires some sort of omnipotent intelligence we usually reserve for our God.
I am merely suggesting they don’t have all the information necessary to know they could be happier with their insurance if it was cheaper.
Oh dear. Is this the part where Don Boudreaux cites the responsible adult mentality of immigrants who arrive with their children, have very little money, came from a poor nation but have a hardworking ethic? And Don can’t help think of the fatarse tellytubby adult Americans who dress in t-shirt and shorts, are well into their 20s if not 30s, still living with their parents, exhibit the mentality of teenagers, have no children and, of course, would rather be unemployed than risk doing hard work? Or alternatively when did Americans last have the hardworking, responsible, baby making ethics? 1930s? 1950s?
On the hand and to do a Hoppe’s, in the days of the monarchies people were hardworking and self-responsble because monarchs felt no obligation to have a welfare state for the people. The peasants could expect some sort of protection from outsiders but that was about it. Hence it seems Hoppe’s notion that Monarchies protect the free market better than Democracies would appear to hold true.
Hence it seems Hoppe’s notion that Monarchies protect the free market better than Democracies would appear to hold true.
That would depend on the monarch.
Don’t we have a democratic monarchy now?
Does our president command less power than hereditary monarchs?
This implies that the criminals in government actually care about us like parents care about their children and only err in coddling us too much, therefore discouraging independence. This is far too charitable a view of our rulers. We are slaves and they consider us and treat us as such.
Stop paying your taxes and see what happens.
Why do I have to log in for every comment I want to make or every time I want to like a comment? No other web site requires this. Once I am logged on to facebook for example, I can open or close any tab in my browser and still be logged in as long as that browser window is open.
“What is equally childish is the notion that the great majority of Americans, who have medical insurance and who say they are satisfied with it, should be panicked and stampeded into supporting vast increases in the arbitrary power of Washington bureaucrats to take medical decisions out of the hands of their doctors – all ostensibly because a minority of Americans do not have medical insurance.”
Strange, all the panic and stampeding I’ve seen has not been towards supporting reform, but against it, for reasons such as:
1. We’ll give free insurance to illegal immigrants (false)
2. We’ll have death panels set up to try and “convince” senior citizens to end their lives sooner (false)
3. We’ll use public money on abortions (false)
I’m sure there are other distortions that cause panic and stampedes, but I’m only on my first cup of coffee.
False? How shill can you be?Who knows about illegal immigrants? The bill isn’t completed. Obama initially quoted the illegal immigrant-inclusive numbers as those people he wanted to cover. Maybe he made a mistake. Republicans have tried to add amendments to clarify that illegals would be excluded, only to have them rejected. And some Democrat congress critters have even advocated for a system which DOES cover illegals. Certainly there is a vast history of things turning up in legislation that are unpopular and unexpected. The only thing that is FALSE is any certainty that illegals won’t be covered.The same holds true for abortions.The hyperbole of the words “death panel” quite obviously does not refer literally to anything anybody would ever write into any legislation or advocate. But it does however succinctly capture the meaning of government rationing of life saving treatments. Using the metaphor is not nearly as idiotic as someone so dim as to take it literally. And I’m not expressing my views, only refuting your parroted nonsense. I personally would not have it cover illegals. Or abortions. Or legals. Or citizens. Or anybody.Try some integrity. You might like how it feels.
“Try some integrity. You might like how it feels.”
Wow. Nice line! I also liked the “rationing of life saving treatments”. That’s a good one. Let’s see, what else? Ah yes, the “so dim as to take it literally.” Well player sir or madam (VikingVista is so asexual). The fact that some democrats have or had provisions for illegal immigrants does not mean it’s in the bill. We all know this. Why are we debating it? You don’t like the bill at all, why debate the finer points of it? Will clarifying the provision on illegal immigrants make you happy? Of course not. And while I may be dim, that is not the reason for bringing up the death panels, though I do find it, in my dim state, funny that you attribute this phrase to mere “hyperbole”. We both know it’s far more than that. It’s fear mongering. Because the right has made a very concerted effort at showing americans that they don’t want this president passing a health care bill. In any form. I’m not saying you don’t. But politicans on the right don’t. So why debate this? Good question. I’m going to go read the NYTimes and practice socialist witchcraft with my lesbian friends.