We are about to get a public option on health care, an idea so incontrovertibly great that it ought to be extended to other fields. The government simply provides more choice and more competition.
There are already public options for mail delivery and mass transit — the United States Postal Service and Amtrak. Sure, those entities do under-perform the private alternatives, such as FedEx and Greyhound. But at least the public option is supported by monopolistic laws preventing direct competition! No private party can deliver regular mail or run trains, even if they could do it for cheaper. We want public options to have some advantages, don't we? If they didn't have any legal advantages over private competitors and were intended to be self-sustaining, we might as well offer them as another private option! That's just silly.
America in general and Connecticut in particular have a long and proud tradition of public options. Did you know Connecticut used to have a public option in religion?
From 1636 till 1818, the Congregational Church was the state's established church. By default, you attended and tithed to that public church, but it was not always mandatory. You could opt out of the Congregational Church. Under the Act of Toleration of 1708, you just had to declare yourself a member of a different religion and then you could attend the other church. Did you still have to pay to support Congregational Church ministers? Well, sure! It was a public option, you know, and we all pay our fair share for the public option — just like the public option on education. You can send your kids to any school you like, but we all must pay our share for public schools.
Over time, Connecticut even granted certain exceptions. Episcopalians could opt out of paying taxes to support the Congregational Church starting in 1727. Baptists and Quakers could do so in 1729. As long as you were on the short list of approved alternate religions, and you could prove you were supporting other ministers, you could opt out of the religious public option. Easy.
You might have noticed what you assumed was a typo above. A state church in 1818 — when the Bill of Rights, whose very first amendment separated church and state, had already been in effect for nearly three decades?
That is no typo. The Bill of Rights, like the rest of the Constitution, serves as a guideline and a goal, not as a blind, mindless restriction on the government's ability to provide for the well-being of its citizens!
With enough time to properly plan a transition, in 1818 Connecticut removed the public option and moved closer to compliance with the First Amendment by issuing a new state constitution. Sure, it still explicitly favored Christianity, but it was a step in the right direction. By 1843, Connecticut had even recognized that Jews have a right to worship. Talk about progress!
The only conclusion one can reach from all this is public options are of course a great idea. They should also be applied to sports.
Sports and health care? Are the two even comparable in terms of impact on the economy?
They are. We pay about as much for health insurance as we do for sports. Health insurance companies had total revenue of $405 billion in 2007, according to the Highline Data Health Industry Aggregate. Total sports revenue, including the NBA, NFL, NHL, MBA and golf, are now around $400 billion a year, according to Plunkett Research, Ltd.
And not just revenue, but the same arguments about rising costs of health care apply to sports. Just try to get Knicks tickets for the whole family without selling a kidney.
Sure, fans currently have a choice about which team to follow, but why not offer a government-funded one, just as an extra option? Consider the Federal Bureaucrats as a new NBA team.
The 'Crats would offer equal NBA access to all. Your grandmother could play point guard and your toddler could play center. The coach would be a former Goldman Sachs partner and only the top lobbyists and political fundraisers would be allowed in the locker room.
And if Shaquille O'Neal finds himself with a decided advantage over a two-year-old, or Kobe Bryant keeps swiping the ball from Grandma, that's where we call foul, and that's where the true advantage of a public option comes into play:
We own the referees.
Love this. Have you seen
Love this. Have you seen the stadium deals that cities and states cut sports franchises for stadiums? Have you seen the seats that politicians get when they go to the games? There is even a 'stadium tax' on tickets that never goes away in chicago. Big government is already involved in athletics. After all, there is money there.
16 Comments from the Fairfield County Weekly
1. On what planet does the USPS under-perform Fedex? When was the last time you mailed a letter via Fedex for 44 cents? And if you mail that letter in-state, it almost always gets to its destination overnight. I believe a case can be made that the USPS is the best bargain in the country.
2. I'm all for the public option is sports, especially since taxpayers fund most of the arenas the teams play in. Shouldn't we get a break on ticket prices?
1) On Earth. :) Your claim could be tested. If USPS is the best bargain in the country, let's allow competition, since you believe the private market with its profit motive could never price service so low. It turns out competitors do pop up once in a while, with lower prices and better service, and the USPS smashes them down with their government-enforced monopoly. Think about it: newspapers are able to deliver by the crack of dawn, you can get fresh kiwis from New Zealand for a quarter, and FedEx/UPS can deliver by dawn, by 10, or by 5 the next day. USPS will get there when they feel like it, only one delivery per day. "When was the last time you mailed a letter via Fedex for 44 cents?" It's illegal. Make it legal and it will probably cost 10 cents or less.
2. If you are for a public option, in sports, religion, or health care, does it matter if others disagree? Or should they all be imprisoned if they don't contribute to your vision? That's the difference between government options and free market options. I'm sure taxpayers should stop funding arenas too. But by your logic, we should all get a discount on church bake sales because religious are tax-exempt. Actually by your logic we should all have a public option in religion again, because taxpayers effectively subsidize their tax-exempt status and taxpayer funds are often diverted to religious groups.
Best,
Phil
Young People. America needs your help.
More than two thirds of the American people want a single payer health care system. And if they cant have a single payer system 76% of all Americans want a strong government-run public option on day one (85% of democrats, 71% of independents, and 60% republicans). Basically everyone.
Our last great economic catastrophe was called the Great Depression. Then as now it was caused by a reckless, and corrupt Republican administration and republican congress. FDR a Democrat, was then elected to save the nation and the American people from the unbridled GREED and profiteering, of the unregulated predatory self-interest of the banking industry and Wallstreet. Just like now.
FDR proposed a Government-run health insurance plan to go with Social Security. To assure all Americans high quality, easily accessible, affordable, National Healthcare security. Regardless of where you lived, worked, or your ability to pay. But the AMA riled against it. Using all manor of scare tactics, like Calling it SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!! :-0
So FDR established thousands of co-op's around the country in rural America. And all of them failed. The biggest of these co-op organizations would become the grandfather of the predatory monster that all of you know today as the DISGRACEFUL GREED DRIVEN PRIVATE FOR PROFIT health insurance industry. And the DISGRACEFUL GREED DRIVEN PRIVATE FOR PROFIT healthcare industry.
This former co-op would grow so powerful that it would corrupt every aspect of healthcare delivery in America. Even corrupting the Government of the United States.
This former co-op's name is BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD.
Do you see now why even the suggestion of co-op's is ridiculous. It makes me so ANGRY! Co-op's are not a substitute for a government-run public option.
They are trying to pull the wool over our eye's again. Senator Conrad, if you don't have the votes now, GET THEM! Or turn them over to us. WE WILL! DEAL WITH THEM. Why do you think we gave your party Control of the House, Control of the Senate, Control of the Whitehouse. The only option on the table that has any chance of fixing our healthcare crisis is a STRONG GOVERNMENT-RUN PUBLIC OPTION.
An insurance mandate and subsidies without a strong government-run public option choice available on day one would be worse than the healthcare catastrophe we have now. The insurance, and healthcare industry have been very successful at exploiting the good hearts of the American people. But Congress and the president must not let that happen this time. House Progressives and members of the Tri-caucus must continue to hold firm on their demand for a strong Government-run public option.
A healthcare reform bill with mandates and subsidies but without a STRONG government-run public option choice on day one, would be much worse than NO healthcare reform at all. So you must be strong and KILL IT! if you have too. And let the chips fall where they may. You can do insurance reform without mandates, subsidies, or taxpayer expense.
Actually, no tax payer funds should be use to subsidize any private for profit insurance plans. Tax payer funds should only be used to subsidize the public plans. Healthcare reform should be 100% for the American people. Not another taxpayer bailout of the private for profit insurance industry, disguised as healthcare reform for the people.
God Bless You
Jacksmith — Working Class
Twitter search #welovetheNHS #NHS Check it out
(http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/why-markets-cant-cure-healthcare/)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbWw23XwO5o) CYBER WARRIORS!! - TAKE THIS VIRAL
As for 'Public Option" and "Does it matter if others disagree": Since when do we base policy on unanimous agreement? Everyone's not going to agree on everything; policymakers should be looking for sound, cost-effective public policy, and have an honest conversation to get most of those affected behind the proposal. In this case, the polls still show significant support for real health care reform and even single-payer. Despite what you and our readers know about the propaganda from the right on this issue -- not just the bogus "death panels (really despicable politicking) but always claiming, for example, that the US has the "best health care in the world," when they know that most legitimate rankings have us at about 37th. Stopping real health care reform isn't about what's the best plan for the most people -- it's about protecting the industry, and it is hurting everybody except the very wealthiest of our citizens. European-style single payer is a success. Free enterprise in health care is a disaster. An eye-opening piece in the New Yorker a few months ago showed how the profit motive drove up the cost of health care in Texas, with no increase in quality of care. Just greed. Whereas places like the Mayo Clinic put docs on salary and provide the best care at a low cost. That piece proved that health care and free enterprise don't mix.
And I also would prefer that government stay out of subsidizing stadiums. Since they can't seem to help themselves, I do think we poor suckers should get something out of it. Instead, at least in NY, both the Yankees and the Mets seemed to have raised most ticket prices. Seems counter-intuitive, doesn't it?
The free market is always efficient by definition because it is a voluntary exchange. If one of them didn't want to do the trade, they didn't have to.
The electricity market, just like the health care market, is nowhere near a free market. They are incredibly highly regulated.
Think of a beautiful crystal ball as the free market. The government comes in and swings a bat at it from all angles and rub dirt on it. Parts of it break off. It no longer shines. It's a shadow of its former self. If you squint real hard, it does seem to still have a roundish like shape. After a while, you might forget what a pure crystal ball looks like, and mistake this monstrosity for the free market. After all, there is still something beautiful about free trade that even the government couldn't fully eradicate. But it's not what it was.
And then the government comes and moves some of the dirt around with a pickaxe. A tiny corner of one part of the sphere is a little more visible, though a lot more scratched than it used to be. Would you say you now have a genuine crystal ball again? Then neither should you call electricity and health care "free markets."
If you don't think FedEx wants any part of the first-class mail business, then you would have no objection to legalizing competition to the post office. If you do object, then you must think that FedEx or another competitor would indeed want a part of it. In fact, the only reason they offer expensive, guaranteed overnight delivery is because it is a loophole in the postal law that allows them even that much leeway. Before FedEx, there was no reason for USPS to provide such a service, and indeed, the only way the USPS provides it now is by using FedEx itself, just not calling it by its name. (From what I understand, the USPS's Express Mail service uses FedEx. In fact, Wikipedia says USPS is the single largest customer of FedEx.)
I am willing to bet huge amounts of money that if postal competition were legalized, even if the USPS still existed, you would be able to get far better service, more frequent and faster delivery, at substantially lower price from a private company. Would you take the opposite side of that bet? If not, then you must not truly believe that FedEx doesn't want a part of that business.
You are right that policy is not based on universal agreement. But the free market is. Nothing happens in the free market unless everyone involved agrees.
But policy is only about taking from some to give to others. At least, that's what it's devolved to today. Originally, policy, from the same origin as police, essentially meant to keep order, to protect private property. It meant to keep everyone else's hands off of your stuff, and your hands off of everyone else's stuff. Now everything belongs to the government, to be distributed as it pleases. And policy means exactly what you say: cost-effectiveness for the government and "conversations" to get the people to support whatever the government wants.
The free market does not equal the profit motive. The free market just means freedom. It means you can choose. The fact that you can even compare two different hospitals, e.g. one from Texas and one in Minnesota is a result of the free market. Perhaps hospitals should be non-profits, like the Mayo clinic. Maybe those are better ways of organizing for health, just as they seem to be in academia and charity. But they are still part of the free market, even if paying dividends is not the goal of the organization. Your comparison indeed proved that health care and free enterprise not only go hand-in-hand, they are kissing each other.
Josh, if you would prefer that government stay out of subsidizing stadiums, you are more than halfway to being a libertarian. Actually way more than halfway, since I imagine you already embrace the civil libertarianism half of believing in a person's sanctity, privacy, free speech, ability to put whatever they want in their own body, etc. If you truly embrace the idea that there is something, anything, that the government simply ought not do, such as subsidizing stadiums, even if it seems to make economic sense, if you are against it on principle, then you are along the path to economic libertarianism too, and really we are not that far apart on this issue of health care.
After all, studies show (let us suppose) that people feel healthier after attending stadiums. Their stress drops, their longevity increases, their family ties and friendly relations strengthen. But nevertheless you oppose it because, well, whoever wants to go to that stadium ought to pay for it! And nobody else.
And that's reasonable. Because those stadium-going folk have no right to take our property by force, even if it does make them healthier, happier, more productive, or better voters. There's nothing counter-intuitive about that.
Best,
Phil
You are right, there are many tenets of libertarianism that I have always freely embraced. The aspects that I can't are those that have to do with basic human needs -- housing the poor, feeding the hungry, treating the sick. Seems to me that pure libertarian doctrine is too willing to say "too bad" to those left behind by the free market.
I also wouldn't find it all that efficient to have multiple companies delivering my mail -- surely there is a benefit in numbers, having one truck bring me three envelopes, rather than three trucks bringing me one envelope each? I just don't buy that that is a "better" system. That would be my objection to allowing on-the-street competition -- I simply don't see the benefit. It's just one area in which I don't think "choice" makes my life any better.
As for the free market and health care, you miss the point. What Texas proves is that when doctors are allowed to invest (read: free market) as medical entrepreneurs, costs go up and care does not improve. Nothing about a free market would change that equation. (Non-profits, as you are aware, are driven by the same need to make money, balance the books, as for-profits.) The only solution is regulation. I know it is a dirty word to you, but sometimes it is necessary.
As much as I respect your informed thinking, I have a feeling we won't change each other's minds on these issues. But I sure enjoy the discussion!
But, even though the proof is obvious, the burden should still not be on us, but on you. For you are the one trying to take something away from us. We are just trying to give you something. If you don't want it, don't take it. But if you prevent others from making the choice, then you are stealing away their freedoms from them.
By your logic you might as well lock everybody in jail because you don't see the benefit of people walking around, living in separate housing, getting their own food. Surely there is a benefit in numbers, having one food delivery service bring prepackaged meals to thousands of inmates, having one housing complex, having one dress code in a bright orange jumpsuit, having lights out all at the same time. Just think of the wonderful environmental impact we could have.
What America proves is that when people are allowed to invest (read: free market) as entrepreneurs, costs go up and service does not improve. The only solution is regulation. Perhaps imprisonment. What's the benefit of freedom, right?!
Freedom doesn't need to justify itself to you -- that's both the definition and the benefit of freedom.
Thanks for the discussion.
Best,
Phil
One last quick (I promise) response: I believe there are benefits to organizing community functions within a free society in ways the improve the lives of the many, Sometimes we go to far and it backfires (see public housing projects of the 60s) but that doesn't mean we should stop trying. Medicare and Social Security have helped millions of people and made their lives better. CUNY has launched thousands of ideas and careers that would not have happened otherwise. I respect you & libertarians because I think you challenge those of who believe that regulation is necessary to make sure we are thinking through unintended consequences and keep us (hopefully) from social engineering. Hopefully, you respect that our points of view are an important corrected to the excesses of the free market as well.
Why should you be "trying" to make person A's life better by forcefully taking property from person B?
I am comforted when I fly that the plane and the airlines are regulated -- there are too many instances of companies cutting corners and making cost-benefit decisions that certain risks are worth it to make an extra buck. If it wasn't for the FAA, we'd never know about it.
And whoever said anything about making person A's life better by taking property from person B? Or are you referring to that ultimate evil, taxes? That's fine, Phil, you opt out of a taxed society -- just don't drive on the roads I paid for, use water that I have paid top have delivered to your house, don't flush your toilet -- I think i paid for those sewers, too; don't count on the cops whose salary I pay for, send your kids to the schools I fund, fly on planes whose traffic controllers I pay for, take medicine that my tax dollars have helped pay for, don't go to court to have some dispute resolved, etc etc etc. Go ahead, opt out. But be honest about it and make sure you don't take advantage of a single service that taxpayers fund -- that wouldn't be fair. In fact, I think that would mean that you would be stealing those services from those who have paid for them.
For all that our government gets wrong -- and it does get a lot wrong -- it's a better place because we have entered a compact that says that government has a role in organizing and overseeing basic societal functions. I pay my taxes gladly every year (even while cursing while filling out the tax forms).
You needed the emergency surgery, you paid the price, end of story.
If the contract was fraudulent, e.g. if an essential part of it wasn’t disclosed to you, then of course, it can and should be challenged. And we have plenty of laws for that. No new regulations are needed.
Children are not considered to be adults, and so they can’t enter freely into any legal contract.
If you feel safer in airports with FAA, you should pay for it, and not force other people to pay for your comfort.
Let some plains to fly without FAA protection and don’t take them even if they cost ten times less. Three times less?
About roads, water, schools, etc,… You can’t forcefully take money from people and then offer or refuse them “services.” That's pure robbery.
There are other ways to pay for these services. The maintenance of our overseas military bases cost about as much as what we collect in income tax. Plus, I am sure Phil doesn’t mind if a state (not the federal gov) decides to collect taxes to pay for whatever, because then you can have a choice of moving into another state.
And what of children whose parents or guardians offer them to an employer?
And I don't understand what you mean by "You can't forcibly take money from people and then refuse them services." I was suggesting that if Libertarians don't want to pay taxes, as a mental exercise, you can CHOOSE to opt out -- but don't drive on roads, call the cops, send your kids to schools, take virtually any medication, etc. Tax dollars subsidize all of it. Imagine life without it. States can't do it alone. Honest. I've read enough about state budgets to know.
Not to mention, in this lightly taxed Federalist Utopia you seem to prefer, what happens if New Hampshire decides it has no problem with dumping PCBs in the CT river -- good for business, after all. Where does that leave Vermont? Or Connecticut? Or should I just move to Oregon, a state run by environmental wackos? Leave New England to be turned into a toxic dump by the Live Free Or Die state because those around it will have no say in the matter?
And really, leave flying unregulated airlines to the poor suckers who can't afford to fly on proven-to-be-maintained planes? That's not a society I want to live in.
I am fine with private schools if I don’t pay for public. The cops are paid by local communities. By the states. Roads are also built by the states (at least it used to be.) With medication, you are not suggesting that if public money went into design of any product and you bring this product to the private market, only people who keep paying taxes should be allowed to use it?
Anyway, I like the way you think. At least offer this option to not ever pay taxes, people might take you on it.
Your argument against giving power to states is generic - it applies to any independent country. What if Canada decides to dump PCB (whatever it is) in the CT river?
About poor suckers who can’t afford to fly on better (government secured) planes, look around. You are living in a society where poor suckers don’t drive better cars, eat better food, go to the better colleges, and don’t have better paying jobs. You want to change that?
As much as I enjoy our discussion (it’s not sarcasm), I am getting tired. Have the last word.
Let me add four thoughts, even if I'm the only one still talking (thank you both for the discussion):
1) Pollution is both trespass and property damage, so it is already illegal and has been for centuries.
2) Josh, if I opt out, I will be thrown in jail if I try to compete with the USPS on first class mail or if I build and fly airplanes without X-raying passengers. If competition weren't illegal, everybody would have already opted out.
3) Using lethal force to take from some to give to others is not "acting collectively" in any meaningful sense.
4) The heart of the matter is indeed what you (Josh) wrote earlier: how do we house the homeless, treat the sick, and feed the hungry? The subtle problems are in the words "we" and "the."
"We" are not all one family. I have people that I care about more than you do, and you have people you care about more than I do. That's kinda the meaning of love: some people are more important than others.
Bottom line is this: do you believe deep in your heart that if you could somehow steal half of Bill Gates's money and feed and clothe all the hungry and poor of the world for a year, that you should do so, and you should be celebrated as a hero?
I believe it is wrong to steal. Period. I can understand why you might do it sometimes, just like I can understand why you might kill sometimes, but it doesn't make you a hero. You need to face the consequences of your actions, go to jail, whatever it is. Otherwise you're not really a free person.
Adults should be able to work 12-hour shifts for a dollar an hour if they want to. They should be able to take risks such as bad kitchen equipment or unsafe mining conditions if they want to. (If people lie to them about the risks, that's fraud, homicide, etc.)
I don't think a majority of people, even 95% of people, can vote morality out of the way. Stealing and murder and genocide are still wrong even if an entire nation condones it.
You can't steal money from Naked to subsidize my operation. Especially you can't gloat about what a good person you are for doing that. It was his money. His blood. I have no right to it. Neither do you.
By your logic of helping everybody, the government should redistribute organs, because someone out there needs my extra kidney and lung more than I do. Tough luck. It's not theirs; it's mine. And don't you touch it! :)
Best!
Phil
Post new comment