I watched the highlights of the healthcare debate and as I predicted, I was not impressed.
I saw the two most influential politicians in this country argue the best way for government to run the healthcare system. This is nothing new for the Prime Minister, we should expect this as he is the quintessential social democrat who shed his free market sheep's clothing in late 2008. This was however, an epic fail for Tony Abbott, as the leader of the opposition demonstrated that his party is nothing more than 'Labor Lite', 'Diet Labor' or 'I can't believe it's not Labor'.
The liberal party is supposed to espouse the principles of small government, individual liberty, natural rights and private property... Mr Abbott demonstrated that he has nothing but contempt for these 'quaint' ideas. Oh how I would long for a politician to stand up in front of the cameras and make the case for something we have NEVER seen before: a free market in healthcare. Dispel the myths, the silly misunderstandings and misconceptions, correct historical inaccuracies that we've been indoctrinated by within government-run schools and expose the source of the current healthcare crisis: the government.
Will that day ever come, I certainly hope so. But I won't be holding my breath for the liberal party anymore.
I think unless you can get someone to move past ‘health is a fundamental human right’ i.e. ‘I have made the arbitrary judgement that it is a fundamental human right to have adequate healthcare provided, obtained with force at the expense of others,’ then there is no point discussing the merits of a pure free market system vs. a hybrid system vs. universal (socialist) health.
If we were just debating economics, they wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. A free market in health would undoubtedly reduce the cost and waiting times for healthcare. Allowing provider to price discriminate (sliding scale) would also benefit the poor. Removal of health licencing, regulation and every other form of legislation and regulation that artificially raises the cost of medical care would benefit everyone - especially the poor.
Unfortunately, most people can’t get past the first hurdle and thus these arguments are wasted on them - that robbing Peter to pay for Paul is fine - so you will not be able to swing them. Every argument will come back to “people have a birthright to healthcare.” It’s as if they believe wealth is generated by magic rather than produced and that just by needing or wanting something you have a “right” to it. Debate on the most effective way to provide healthcare for everyone is pointless with these people. Government must provide it, so lets just discuss the best way for them to do that (centralised vs. localised).
I find it hard to even convince them of the economic law that if you make something desirable ‘free’, people will use more of it. They don’t believe that (‘oh I hate the doctor, I wouldn’t use it more’) - but as you’re paying for it anyway through tax - if you’ve had, for example, some elbow pain that normally you would just shrug off, under ‘free’ healthcare you would go and get an expensive MRI. So would everyone else. Hell, you would get the most comprehensive checks as often as possible just to be safe - after all, it’s ‘free’. The result is an infinite explosion in demand that will result in queues.
I like Reisman’s burger/steak example the best:
I point out, for example, that someone who might be thinking of choosing between, say, a $3 hamburger and a $15 steak, will now be much more inclined to order the steak. This is because instead of the additional cost to him being the full difference of $12, which it would be if each student had to pay his own check, the additional cost to him will now be perhaps just 50¢, that is, it will be the additional $12 divided by 24 (which happens to be the usual number of students in my class). I point out that to the extent that the students behave this way, the size of the total check must increase. Obviously, if what all 24 students ordered were affected in this way, the size of the check that each of them would have to pay would end up being $15 instead of $3, because each of them would experience the effect of 23 other students shifting 50¢ of their additional costs to him. In other words, it would be a situation of mutual plunder, in which all would lose.
I explain how even if things did not start out quite this bad, the dynamics of the situation would tend to make them end up this way, if such meals were made a regular event. I point out that because the students are a relatively small group and know each other to some extent, and probably have some personal regard for each other, many of them might be unwilling to take advantage of the others and thus would order as they normally would, perhaps even more conservatively than they normally would. But all it takes is that a few of them take advantage of the situation. In that case, at the next such outing, some of those who had shown restraint the first time will follow the lead of those who hadn’t and also take advantage of the situation. Soon self-restraint will be regarded as serving merely those who are unwilling to practice self-restraint.
Even if this kind of outcome might be avoided in a small group of individuals all of whom possessed both high regard for one another and high standards of personal responsibility, it is certain that in a group consisting of thousands, tens of thousands, or millions of total strangers, the only possible outcome will be a sharp increase in total costs. Here one can benefit oneself greatly at virtually no significant cost to any other single individual, who is anonymous in any case. In a group of a hundred thousand people, for example, an additional expense of $1,000 incurred on behalf of any given individual means an additional expense of just 1¢ to each member of the group.