An Unfortunate Culture of Entitlement

...as explained by the London Times here.

The Wisdom of Teddy Roosevelt

"I really do not know which quality is most productive of evil to mankind in the long run, hardness of heart or softness of head." He stated that the Bible tells each of us "to stretch out his hand to a brother who stumbles. But while every man needs at times to be lifted up when he stumbles, no man can afford to let himself be carried, and it is worth no man's while to try thus to carry someone else."

Governmental aid to those in need, TR emphasized, should be limited and "extended very cautiously, and so far as possible only where it will not crush out healthy individual initiative." He saw entrepreneurship as the most effective means of dealing with problems and argued that "socialists and others really do not correct the evils at all, or else only do so at the expense of producing others in aggravated form."

Roosevelt saw governmental redistribution of wealth as a surrender to covetousness. He argued that anyone elected on such a platform "is not, and never can be, aught but an enemy of the very people he professes to befriend. . . . To break the Tenth Commandment is no more moral now than it has been for the past thirty centuries."

In short, TR opposed both private and governmental corruption. He straightforwardly noted that "the Eighth Commandment reads: 'Thou shalt not steal.' It does not read: 'Thou shalt not steal from the rich man.' It does not read: 'Thou shalt not steal from the poor man.' It reads simply and plainly: 'Thou shalt not steal.'"

A Bizarre Argument

In this article, the author makes the bizarre argument that even though the USPS is generally inferior to UPS or Fedex, and even though Amtrak is a travesty of a rail company, they would make good models for federally provided health care. The argument essentially boils down to this: the USPS may not be all that good, but no other private company does what it does, so the USPS is better than nothing. What's the problem with this argument? Private companies are forbidden by law from competing with the post office when it comes to basic mail delivery.

If anything, this article makes a great case for why the government should not be directly involved in the actual provision of health care. Nobody doubts that people would rather have basic health care than none at all. A sensible person might conclude from these ideas then that the government should provide financial support to people to ensure that they have basic health care, rather than provide the care itself.

One other note: health insurance is far different from the actual provision of health care. Health insurance can only be cheap if the actual health care is cheap. The only way government insurance can be cheap is if it drastically underpays doctors and hospitals (which would lead to many shortages and other problems), or if the government directly runs the hospitals. Anyone excited about heading to the public hospital?

The Insurance Industry

I am all for reforming the health care system, but using the insurance industry as villains is simple-minded and not particularly convincing. Sure enough, every day there are stories about an insurance company rescinding its contract with a patient after they discover that there was an unannounced (and possibly previously unknown) pre-existing condition. We hear about denials of treatment, and worse. Undoubtedly, one of the goals of any health care reform effort should be to get rid of some of these practices.

Nevertheless, the story that the big hungry profit-seeking insurance companies are to blame for rising premiums and mass deaths and bankruptcies is false. For one, the average profit-margin in the insurance industry is... 3.9%. Read here for more. That is far less than the profit margin in most US industries. Also, don't forget that Blue Cross and Kaiser are two large, nonprofit insurance companies.

The fact of the matter is that health insurance costs in the US are high and rising quickly because health care costs are high and rising quickly, not because insurance is in and of itself so expensive.

Get Out Your Nietzschean Hammer

...and pummel your emotional commitments to your ideology. The following article talks about how we tend to work backward from a firm conclusion to come up with a supporting argument. (You're supposed to do it the other way around.)

Read here.

Of Shouts and Lies

Read this for a good take on all the distortions and bad tactics (from both sides) in the healthcare reform debate.

What's at Stake: Your Freedom

In this article, Mark Steyn discusses why the healthcare debate, and the prospect of reform, is about much more than just "controlling costs" or "expanding coverage." It is about the fundamental right of people to have personal control over their medical expenditures, or in other words, the fundamental right to have personal control over the care of your body.