In response to Megan McArdle’s piece: ‘Republicans Should Save These 3 Unpopular Parts Of Obamacare.‘
Via The Goldwater Institute: ‘Where The Right Shouldn’t Go Wrong On the ACA‘
‘The usually spot-on McArdle misses the mark this time.
It is no exaggeration to say that, because it is immune from judicial, executive and legislative review and oversight, IPAB is the most dangerous consolidation of unchecked government power in American history. That is why it should be a top priority in ACA repeal efforts.’
Meanwhile, A. Barton Hinkle at Reason has a few suggestions:
‘Obamacare tries to solve the problem of pre-existing conditions the Rube Goldberg way: Make insurers cover individuals no matter what, then guard against people buying coverage only once they get sick by forcing everybody to purchase a policy through the individual mandate—an unprecedented expansion of government power.’
Hard choices will have to be made, choices which may quite literally mean death, or a sooner death, for some people than otherwise would occur.
Yet, in a world of scarce resources, these decisions are being made every day, and this blog believes if you want the greatest number for the greatest good, you must treat health care like the market it is, getting the incentives right and letting as many individuals (you and me) negotiate those hard choices with as many market and price signals as possible.
Once health-care becomes a ‘right,’ it becomes a sacred cow to be slowly milked by people who claim to have the knowledge to milk that cow, but whose claims to knowledge, I don’t believe, can negotiate reality beyond the political and economic influence they seek and the often ideological lights which guide them.
This failure of design will fail more spectacularly in the long-run, and lead to more suffering.
On that note, I don’t necessarily dream of a world of old W.A.S.P. establishment types making the important decisions which affect my life; nepotistic, clubby, but hopefully honorable and capable of broader sacrifice beyond their spheres of belief and interest.
I would just rather have the guys out on the golf-course swapping stories, finding camaraderie and making subtle judgments about each other’s characters to have the right incentives, having to serve customers and do right by their families when possible.
You know, be held to their own past decisions and frankly, not to have too much power.
Let’s spare everyone the bullshit of having any individuals be inherently any better or worse by their status as a group-identity member.
That way lie(s) fiefdoms and Balkanization.
On that note, I would rather as few people as possible getting rich solely through politics, but some signs are not good.
Culturally, I suspect many are drifting towards ideals that will retrench some of the old government/big business connections found throughout the boomer generation, but now with the standard-issue European secular humanistic ideals and their discontents playing a more important role.
Please tell me all the ways I’m wrong, here:
I keep putting up this quote from Ira Stoll:
‘Indeed, if there is a single fact that sums up the state of American political economy at the present moment, it is this: the Boston office building once home to Inc. Magazine and Fast Company, which chronicled and celebrated small and fast-growing businesses, is now the headquarters of a publication called “Compliance Week.”’