Health Mandates, or Incentives – Which is Smarter?

Government Ideologues Ignore Constitution, Avoid Real Problem-Solving

Think Harder

So it’s come to this – again.  Mankind’s Overwhelming Question:  Do we allow the government, or does the government – acting for our benefit, of course – allow us?  If government has provided the physical infrastructure and the organizational enablers for our training and success, has it not earned the right to dictate our behavior on any matter that may have social consequence?  If we are assured of being protected from enemies foreign and domestic, from extreme deprivation or disability, surely it would be selfish and ungrateful to not be obedient, when asked, to our benefactors.

And when it comes to setting our personal priorities, doesn’t service to the society that nurtures us and with whom we are totally interdependent have first call?  Family and friends, neighbors and colleagues, after all, are also interconnected in the vast network we call society and upon which we all depend.   And doesn’t it follow that the leaders we elect are merely acting out the mandate of history to make the best decisions possible on our behalf.  Doesn’t the progress of  civilization itself rely on their wisdom and valor?

And isn’t it essential to peace, harmony and cooperation that so-called individuals don’t arrogantly and selfishly assert themselves in a manner that is disruptive to the social milieu?  What place is there in a truly harmonious society for narcissistic, competitive and combative egoists?   And if that person cannot restrain himself from saying hurtful things and taking disruptive actions, shouldn’t a socially-just administration undertake his retraining  into a more harmonious component of the whole?

NOT!!!

I was watching the early-morning Anchors on CNBC’s  ”Squawkbox”  (Carl Quintanilla, Joe Kernan and Becky Quick) discussing the aftermath of the Congressional passing of the two health care bills – and the discussion hit an odd cul-de-sac.  They couldn’t determine the legitimate extent of government compulsion necessary when a common, necessarily shared, good was involved.  This was probably touched off by the bills’ individual mandate, requiring citizens to buy insurance.  Was it the same as states requiring auto insurance?  Motorcycle helmets?  Is it fair for someone to be allowed to abuse their own health if the rest of society is going to pay for the consequences?  If not, where does government legislative remedy stop?  Food?  Tattoos?  Smoking?  Seat Belts?

And if the government recognizes that you are harming the planet with your careless use of energy (and exhaling CO2, and emitting methane), is it justified, for the good of all, to use various forms of coercion to control your social (and planetary) destructiveness?

And if the government can define what constitutes a threat to the society  (and planet) it is charged with protecting, where will it end?  Because in each of these scenarios, the threat is you!  If you protest that a threat is not real and you, therefore, are doing no harm, to whom would you protest?

And that’s why we got rid of King George.  Kings are able to make arbitrary rules about what constitutes a just society, and enforce it as they please.  George Washington, it is said, was popular enough to become a King, or at least ruler for life.  He didn’t want it.  He recognized that, not only would the new US government need to continue the best aspects of the British system of the rule of law, but with a new twist:  It was now the government’s job to protect the individual – from government!   It’s the genius of the founders that has produced the “American Exception,” as well as the free market principles that have freed more people from poverty than any system ever devised.

That said, the first couple of paragraphs, above (just before “NOT!!!”) are nonsense.  All of that infrastructure was bought and paid for, many times over, by the hard work and sacrifice of individuals in a society that works from the ground up.  Some inventiveness may come from government labs and contractors, but we must remember who paid for the labs and contracts, and who selected the  government  representatives who made the decisions.  Most businesses start very small, often with just one person with an idea.  America’s job is to protect that person and to not hinder him in his (or her) individual efforts.  The reward is a taxation bonanza and a prosperous, free country.

Health care is complicated and politically difficult.  You can either tackle the difficult components of the problem or go for sweeping change.  The lazy and unsatisfactory way is the latter.  You don’t have to change 16% of the economy in order to mitigate a handful of problems that can be dealt with individually.  You don’t have to mandate that every individual not getting employee health insurance buy insurance or be fined.  Think a little harder, plan a bit, and you can come up with a plan that will incentivize each individual to want to buy insurance.

That’s the American way, Becky, Carl and Joe.  The other is authoritarian and shouldn’t even be a consideration.