Paul Krugman wants to know: “How did it become normal, or for that matter even acceptable, to refer to medical patients as ‘consumers’?”
Let’s concede for argument’s sake there is something unattractive about viewing patients as consumers. Krugman writes, “Medical care, after all, is an area in which crucial decisions—life and death decisions—must be made. Yet making such decisions intelligently requires a vast amount of specialized knowledge.”
All true, but not necessarily decisive in answering Krugman’s question—because if we reject the patient-as-consumer model, we must then ask: What’s the alternative?
I believe the answer is this: If the patient is not a consumer he or she will be a ward of the State or a government-empowered insurance company. If the choice is between consumer and ward of the State, consumer doesn’t look so bad after all.
To see what ward status means, ponder Krugman’s thoughts on the Independent Payment Advisory Board, Obamacare’s Medicare cost-cutting apparatus:
“About that advisory board: We have to do something about health care costs, which means that we have to find a way to start saying no. In particular, given continuing medical innovation, we can’t maintain a system in which Medicare essentially pays for anything a doctor recommends. . . .
“And the point is that choices must be made; one way or another, government spending on health care must be limited” (emphasis added).
Much of what Krugman says here is correct. Resources are finite. Choices must be made. No matter how medical care is paid for, spending will be limited—regardless of what demagogues imply. But under Krugman’s patient-not-as-consumer model (which is largely in effect today), government experts make all the important decisions. Bureaucrats will have a global budget for medical spending, and it will be their job to stick to that budget. They will not be the patients’ agents. Advocates of this scheme insist the quality of medical care will not be cut along with costs. They assure us they will prohibit only “unnecessary” and “wasteful” procedures. But how objective are those categories? And why should we trust unaccountable bureaucrats and “experts” to make the right decisions, as though there were one-size-fits-all answers in medicine?
The upshot is that anyone who has his or her medical bills paid by the taxpayers will ultimately be at the government’s mercy. If you’re not a consumer you’re a ward of the State.
But won’t private medical coverage also have restrictions? The difference is that if medical coverage were offered in a freed market—no privileges, no licenses, no protectionism—the environment would be competitive. When government is in charge competition disappears or is vastly constrained to the point where it hardly matters. In a competitive environment entrepreneurs seek to discover what services best satisfy their customers’ requirements. Note well: This environment includes nonprofit solutions, such as mutual-aid societies, which through “lodge practice” managed to provide decent medical coverage to people of modest means in earlier times (tinyurl.com/cjca68).
Competition is a discovery process (Hayek). Government is the habitat of bureaucrats who pretend they know it all already.
Krugman cautions, “[B]ear in mind that we’re not talking about limits on what health care you’re allowed to buy with your own (or your insurance company’s) money. We’re talking only about what will be paid for with taxpayers’ money.” This is disingenuous.
After being taxed all their lives, how many elderly people are in a position to forgo Medicare in favor of private insurance? Government creates dependence, then exploits that dependence to justify its power.
* * *
Even if the flawed Consumer Price Index isn’t quite showing it yet, there is talk of inflation in the air. What exactly is going on? One of our sharp economy watchers, Warren Gibson, doesn’t like what he sees.
Advocates of government expansion have not found the Constitution a terribly formidable barrier. Could a better-written preamble have helped? James Payne thinks perhaps it would have.
Schools run by state and local governments are bad enough, but how about a single national school system run from Washington, D.C.? The best-kept secret these days is the Obama administration’s moves toward a national curriculum. Neal McCluskey has the unpleasant details.
H. L. Mencken famously suggested that fear among the people is the government’s best friend. James Bovard finds ample empirical evidence for Mencken’s thesis.
Why are markets, despite their palpable benefits, morally tainted in so many people’s eyes? F. A. Hayek thought it’s because markets don’t embody the nurturing morality of the family that we first learn as children. Dwight Lee endorses Hayek’s explanation and points out that we wouldn’t like the results if great societies were run like families.
After a natural disaster the high-profile first response leaves the impression that no alternative to a centrally planned recovery is available. Peter Boettke says that’s a failure to look more closely.
Labor unions continue to be at the center of controversy. Despite appearances, Wendy McElroy writes, government-backed unions limit workers’ ability to organize in their own interest.
Just because two things are called by the same name is no reason to assume they are actually the same. Take the case of private-sector and government investment. Adam Summers does just that.
Our columnists’ inquiring minds have produced a smorgasbord of provocative fare: Thomas Szasz ponders the legal status of suicide. Stephen Davies looks at Japanese commercial virtues. John Stossel thinks police making arrests have no right to privacy. David Henderson says no particular person can say how much manufacturing Americans should engage in. And Gary Chartier, encountering a newspaper columnist’s claim that opposing military intervention indicates indifference to suffering, responds, “It Just Ain’t So!”
Books on the mistreatment of taxpayers, economics, and an infamous automobile catch the fancy of our reviewers.—Sheldon Richman email@example.com