Freeman

GIVE ME A BREAK!

Arrogance

SEPTEMBER 23, 2009 by JOHN STOSSEL

Filed Under : Knowledge Problem, Health Care, F. A. Hayek

It’s crazy for a group of mere mortals to try to design 15 percent of the U.S. economy. It’s even crazier to do it in a few months.

Yet that is what some members of Congress presumed to do. They intended, as the New York Times put it, “to reinvent the nation’s health care system.”

Let that sink in. A handful of people who probably never even ran a small business actually think they can reinvent the healthcare system.

Politicians and bureaucrats clearly have no idea how complicated markets are. Every day, people make countless tradeoffs in all areas of life based on subjective value judgments and personal information as they delicately balance their interests, needs, and wants. Who is in a better position than they to tailor those choices to best serve their purposes? Yet the politicians believe they can plan the medical market the way you plan a birthday party.

Leave aside how much power the State would have to exercise over us to run the medical system. Suffice it to say that if government attempts to control our total medical spending, sooner or later, it will have to control us.

Also leave aside the inevitable huge cost of any such program. The administration has estimated $1.5 trillion over ten years with no increase in the deficit. But no one should take that seriously. When it comes to projecting future costs, these guys may as well be reading chicken entrails. In 1965, hospitalization coverage under Medicare was projected to cost $9 billion by 1990. The actual price tag was $66 billion.

The sober Congressional Budget Office debunked the reformers’ cost projections. Trust us, Obama says. “At the end of the day, we’ll have significant cost controls,” presidential adviser David Axelrod said. Give me a break.

Who Knows Best?

Now focus on the spectacle of that handful of men and women daring to think they can design the medical marketplace. They would empower an even smaller group to determine–for millions of diverse Americans–which medical treatments are worthy and at what price.

How do these arrogant, presumptuous politicians believe they can know enough to plan for the rest of us? Who do they think they are? Under cover of helping uninsured people get medical care, they live out their megalomaniacal social-engineering fantasies–putting our physical and economic health at risk in the process.

Will the American people say “Enough!”?

I fear not, based on the comments on my blog. When I argued that medical insurance makes people indifferent to costs, I got comments like: “I guess the 47 million people who don’t have health care should just die, right, John?” “You will always be a shill for corporate America.”

Like the politicians, most people are oblivious to F. A. Hayek’s insight that the critical information needed to run an economy–or even 15 percent of one–doesn’t exist in any one place where it is accessible to central planners. Instead, it is scattered piecemeal among millions of people. All those people put together are far wiser and better informed than Congress could ever be. Only markets–private property, free exchange, and the price system–can put this knowledge at the disposal of entrepreneurs and consumers, ensuring the system will serve the people and not just the political class.

This is no less true for medical care than for food, clothing, and shelter. It is profit-seeking entrepreneurship that gave us birth control pills, robot limbs, Lasik surgery, and so many other good things that make our lives longer and more pain-free.

To the extent the politicians ignore this, they are the enemies of our well-being. The belief that they can take care of us is rank superstition.

Who will save us from these despots? What Adam Smith said about the economic planner applies here, too: The politician who tries to design the medical marketplace would “assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it.”

Copyright 2009 by JFS Productions, Inc. Distributed by Creators Syndicate, Inc.

ASSOCIATED ISSUE

October 2009

comments powered by Disqus

EMAIL UPDATES

* indicates required

CURRENT ISSUE

November 2014

It's been 40 years since F. A. Hayek received his Nobel Prize. His insights, particularly on the distribution of knowledge and the impossibility of economic planning, remain hugely important today. In this issue, we look back on the influence of his work. Max Borders and Craig Biddle debate whether liberty must be defended from one absolute foundation, further reflections on Scottish secession, and how technology is already changing our world for the better--including how robots, despite the unease they cause, will only accelerate this process.
Download Free PDF

PAST ISSUES

SUBSCRIBE

RENEW YOUR SUBSCRIPTION