Beyond Economics

Back to Health Care

Earlier today, I was watching some Bloomberg show and Dennis Kucinich addressed health care reform. He argued that the current debate must answer a fundamental question before various reform measures can be considered. That question is whether health care coverage is a right or a good in our society?

Kucinich suggests that health care is a right and accordingly, he is a proponent for a single-payer system. If society determines that health care is in fact a right, I would have to agree that the government has a duty to act in order to protect the rights of the citizens.

But I would argue that health care is in fact a good. Therefore, government has no obligation to provide for the citizens. Since having health care provided is dependent on another individual being obligated to provide for your needs, it cannot be an individual right since it violates anothers. The traditional rights that our government serves to protect such as protection of property rights, free speech, etc. do not require the actions of others. Of course, these rights are maintained through the law. While the enforcement of laws requires individual action, in general, the legal protection of individual rights stands without physical enforcement. Another instance where the government has a duty to act is to protect the country from foreign threats, but it is accomplished through a volunteer army (Well that’s obviously subject to change).

I cannot agree that it is my god-given right to expect others to care for my own personal health and well-being. It is a personal matter that one can choose to acquire assistance, and acquire the good.

The Federal Government was not intended to be a vehicle for responding to moral dilemmas. If certain state governments found it necessary to act, I would not be as tough an opponent due to the populations greater say in a local government. The existence of charities in the private sector, would offer assistance to those unable to care for themselves. As was prevalent prior to increased government entitlements.

The health care industry accounts for 1/6 of our economy. The size of the industry by itself, makes the debate monumental. All too often, partisan bickering suggests private sector workers are somehow superior in ability and bureaucrats are inferior and inefficient. Or the private sector exploits and is greedy, etc and the profit motive is denounced.

Instead I consider all parties involved as equal in ability, character, etc. and rather than focus on preconceived notions about individuals, I analyze the structure of the industry to see which is preferable.

The problem with single-payer or other government versions is apparent when government is viewed as a corporation with a powerful monopoly. It essentially is exactly that. The incentive is not on the best individual care but on aggregate measures of performance and costs. From the POV of an ambitious central planner, it is perfect for fostering a dependent population and it even comes with philosophical justification.

Our current system fails us in that it is not consumer driven and the payments system is completely screwed. I would never argue for the industry’s concentration into a single private firm for many of the same reasons the government would be inappropriate.

As always, the key is to foster competition. Ironically, a very lofty goal considering lobbyist influences.

This topic is also morally charged and there is no way to correctly determine the role as a good or a right. Society must decide through honest, straightforward debate. Instead, Obama pushes forward a reform agenda aggressively and with great urgency, which makes me skeptical. Without a clear, straight-forward presentation of what is actually being proposed, Obama avoids honest debate and leaves much to the imagination.

Although Kucinich’s stance is very much the opposite of my own, his approach is honest and encourages debate. The Obama/Congress approach to HC reform does not allow the public to consider all arguments.

By addressing the big picture, as Kucinich proposes, it is easier to understand the current system. Since the industry is altered and skewed by years of government manipulation, it exists in many ways outside any comprehensible market structure. By establishing the governments role upfront, and the legislative goals, decisive and meaningful reform can be realized.

But like usual, the ambitious agenda of the White House serves the collective good and that is all that us common folk need to understand. I mean Obama went to Harvard and I heard he’s super smart so if anyone can do it, he can. Oh I mean we can. Yes we can.

Continued from another post…

My initial post set out to recognize a fundamental aspect of the on-going HC debate. That being whether HC is a good or a right? The distinction helps to provide clarity to the government’s role in the health care industry.

My response argued that HC is a good for a variety of reasons. Although by distinguishing HC as a good, it may have been quite misleading as to government’s proper role thereafter.

The government’s duty is to protect not to provide. That is to protect the rights of the parties involved within the free-enterprise system. In health care for example, the rescission of insurance coverage for individuals most vulnerable is unjustifiable and intolerable. The individual is exploited and it would only be reasonable for the government to step in to protect the individual.

In accordance with being a good, consumers choose to acquire health care and insurance, but in that very process, the consumer has a right to be treated fairly. I do not consider health coverage a fundamental right that should be provided for by a government entity. Instead, the government has a duty to provide a fair, lawful environment in which consumers can acquire health care without being manipulated and mistreated.

For those stubborn free-market advocates who would suggest that this constitutes interference in the free-market that is detrimental, I hope your kidding. The reason I find it not only justifiable, but necessary is that this is not a level-playing field to begin with. What I mean is that consumers are pitted up against a corporation, which is the beneficiary of a government charter. By issuing a legal privilege to a group of individuals (shareholders), it would only be fair to ensure that this privileged consolidation of wealth was acting in the best interest of society, therefore warranting the charter in the first place. Personally, I do not care much for the idea of a corporation. But since their existence is not going to disappear anytime soon, we must deal with them accordingly.

Unfortunately, identifying and even agreeing on the proper role of the government will only get you so far. The reality of the situation was touched upon by Rob, in that, at the end of the day, policies are manipulated by the most politically powerful interests. But misdiagnosing the cause of the problem is all too common, in that one does not recognize the failures of our current system and assumes the other extreme is the only other solution, government run health care.

The issues I have with a government system are not limited to inefficiency or quality. But this topic is extensive and will have to wait. But I do find it peculiar that rather than enforcing anti-trust legislation in order to bring about competition, there is the discussion of a public-insurance option to increase competition. Since when does the referree participate in the game?

Back to Health Care