"it will be cheaper in the long run if everyone has insurance." People say that all the time, but I don't think it's true. At not if the word insurance means what I think it means. First, almost everything gets more expensive in aggregate if more is produced, even if individual items cost less. However, there are large categories of goods where the individual cost goes UP as more is consumed. Roads are an example everyone understands immediately. My bet is that h/c is in this camp. -XC PS - FWIW, I get a rash whenever someone makes the Aristotelian argument for philosopher kings to solve contentious political issues. So I am off to get some Gold Bond, thanks so very much! :-)
I don't see how you get philosopher king out of my statement. I think it's a pragmatic view. A philosopher king view is one which says we can solve this or that problem by rationality. I'm saying we need to give the law space to develop and fit into the system, then reevaluate what works and what doesn't after some period of years. That's empiricism, the opposite of strict rationality.
A call for a non-ideological solution to a political problem always reminds me of the appeal towards a disinterested class who can solve such problems. They don't exist, but it's a cultural reflex that seems to exist in a lot of places. I refuse to discuss empiricism, rationality, and structural culture without a turleneck and a pipe. _XC PS - I would argue that it's not rational to think that a large government program can be created from scratch and then, after five years, get a good course correction to make it work better. I am completely unable to think of any such thing ever happening in the US. The Donk's gave us 1200 pages of turd to eat, and eat it we will. And our children's children....
I'm not disinterested. I work in healthcare, and my livelihood depends on people having health insurance. The industry will implode sooner or later if costs aren't reduced in the near future, as healthcare costs, as I'm sure you're aware, have outstripped inflation since, like, the 60s, or something ridiculous. My point is that there has to be an engineering solution out there that one can search for dispassionately without screaming "socialist" on the one end or "fascist" on the other. Elitist or not, empiricism is the only thing that can help inform good policy making on this type of complicated issue. You're probably right that government programs are rarely cancelled once they are initiated. The problem (why we got this bill instead of any other) is that health costs are an important issue; it's not an invented issue like so many other political topics. It needed some solution, and this subpar exercise was the only thing that could squeeze through the cumbersome rules and procedures of Congress (cough...gifts to individual legislators districts...cough).I would argue that it's not rational to think that a large government program can be created from scratch and then, after five years, get a good course correction to make it work better. I am completely unable to think of any such thing ever happening in the US. The Donk's gave us 1200 pages of turd to eat, and eat it we will
But people have been arguing since before HMO's (remember how they were supposed to save money and fix the system?) that THE END OF HEALTH is right around the corner. Was it Menckin who said that "the dark shadow of tyranny is always settling on America and landing on Europe?" I will also note that the other areas where the federal gov't "helps" us all is in paying for college and making a market for home loans. Hows that all working out for us? How about we try LESS government for once, just for giggles? -XC