Steyn on the correct argument against nationalized health
Ben W. writes:
Steyn might be a buffoon but he does state the problem about health care in concise terms. It cannot be from the conservative standpoint a utilitarian argument.LA replies:
Of course. For once Steyn says something both true and important.
Lydia McGrew writes:
That’s an interesting question that you raise when you comment on Mark Steyn’s column. Is it unprincipled in conservatives to oppose socialized medicine on the grounds that it is an economic disaster? Well, okay, I admit to putting the question in stronger terms than “we can’t afford it.” But I think there may be something rather profound lurking here. Think of socialism or Communism generally. Is it possible to separate the fact that Communism and socialism are economically crazy and have bad results from the fact that they give the state too much power? I don’t think so. The consequential aspect and the ideological aspect are bound up together intimately. I could interpret Bob Dole’s remark in something like this way: “A guaranteed chicken in every pot sounds nice, but it isn’t the kind of thing the government can do in the nature of the case, because there is no such thing as a free lunch.” Probably Dole didn’t mean anything quite that subtle, but maybe something vaguely like it was in the back of his mind. Socialized medicine is like socialized anything else: it’s a grand scheme to guarantee a certain good for everyone, and ideologues believe they can make such things possible by waving a magic wand. Such schemes ignore human nature and basic economic law (which is a matter of human nature), and therefore their grand schemes never pan out as they promise. This is very much worth pointing out, in my opinion, because it arises from the essence of their program—trying to get something for nothing by means of government-managed redistribution—rather than being a mere accident that might be fixed with better design of the socialized scheme.Jonathan W. writes:
This debate is similar to one that occurs frequently within anti-gun control circles. Some Second Amendment supporters refuse to debate the merits and policy of gun control. They claim that by doing so, they are tacitly conceding that if gun control was effective social policy, then it would be proper for the government to pass even more stringent gun laws. This would have the effect of delegating an important Constitutional right to the whims of crime statisticians and other so called “experts.”James N. writes:
People who object to nationalized health care because it “doesn’t work” are missing the point.LA replies:
While I agree with all of Jonathan’s points, I think James gets closer to the heart of the issue. National health in its essence is not about instituting certain practical plans of paying for people’s healthcare that are not really practical; and it’s not about taking away people’s Constitutional rights. It’s about the elemental will to submit more and more of human life under inhuman bureaucratic control in order to assure the equality of all humans.Jack S. writes:
Well said by James N., I couldn’t have expressed it any better. This guy is damned brilliant. You have a lot of very bright people reading and commenting on your blog.Ben W. writes:
I’m curious why Ken Hechtman hasn’t posted anything at VFR defending Canada’s health care system. Especially given Ilana Mercer’s article that you posted. Surely universal health care is a major aspect of liberalism.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 01, 2009 12:25 PM | Send