A friend (you know who you are) informed me that the Economist magazine was “getting better”, for example it had a lead story denouncing government debt. Of course this was the government debt that the Economist had urged government to take on (to bail out banks and other corporations and then to “stimulate the economy”), but it was good that it was denouncing the debt.
So I decided to give the Economist a chance and read their article (“editorial”) on American health care. After drinking a bottle of cider to recover (what a nice new bottle shape Henry Westons have produced) these on my thoughts upon that article:
It starts with a lie – Barack Obama was elected in part because of his plans to “fix American health care”.
In reality it was Hillary Clinton who stressed her health care plan during the Democrat primary campaign (Barack Obama just attacked her plan and made vague noises about his own). And during the general election campaign it was John McCain who came out with a specific health care plan, allowing people to buy health cover over State lines and switching the tax deductibility of buying health care cover from employers to individuals, whereas Barack Obama just (dishonestly) attacked the McCain plan and was vague about his own.
Barack Obama was elected President of the United States for several reasons (white guilt about mistreatment of black people, the total ideological devotion of the education system and the mainstream media, the insane judgement by John McCain to back the bank bailouts…), but stressing some specific plan to “fix American health care” was not one of them.
Still the Economist does not let the truth stand in the way of its articles, so it then outlines its position.
“Starting from scratch their would be a good case for a mostly publicly funded system” even for a magazine “as economically liberal as this one”.
This is a standard Economist trick – propose some form of statism and defend it by saying even we, the free market ones (the European meaning of “economically liberal”), are in favour of this statism. Of course the Economist never actually produces any evidence that it is pro-free market – but it is at trick it has been using since Walter Bagehot (the second editor, the first editor actually was a free market man) so I suppose it is a lie hollowed by history.
However, we are not “starting from scratch” so the Economist reluctantly concedes that some little freedom (about half of American health care is already government funded and the rest is tied up in regulations – facts that the Economist avoids, see later) must remain for awhile – it suggests five years. The first step, according to the Economist, must be to make everyone buy health cover by statute with the poor being subsidized by the government “as is done already in Massachusetts”. That the Massachusetts “reform”, introduced by Governor Romney, has turned out rather badly is a fact that the Economist article neglects to mention – even though the percentage of “uncovered” in Massachusetts was very low compared to other States so if this “reform” was going to work anywhere it would have worked in Massachusetts.
Of course, says the Economist, insurance companies must not be allowed to exploit government subsides for the poor. They must provide “affordable” plans (no prices are suggested – it is all left vague), and must not be allowed to exclude the old or the already sick from their plans.
In short – lower prices and covering high cost groups. As (contrary to the propaganda) American health insurance is already not a high profit margin industry, these “reforms” should be enough to bankrupt the insurance companies – even before the five year period comes to an end and the government plan the Economist suggests takes over.
However, just in case the private health companies are not bankrupted, the Economist also suggests that “anti trust” be introduced into the area. As the late Ayn Rand (and so many others) have pointed out, there are no clear principles (things that can be clearly defined in advance) in “anti trust” or “competition policy” in fact the whole thing is an excuse for arbitrary power for the government working with the politically connected. But the Economist either does not know, or does not care, about this point – and loves “anti trust”.
Almost needless to say the Economist does not mean getting rid of regulation (such as the licensing regulations for doctors – exposed as a racket by Milton Friedman 60 years ago,. or the F.D.A. and its price inflating and new medical adavance preventing “health and safety” regulations). On the contrary the Economist means yet more regulations on top of all the ones that exist already.
Of course the Economist does not mention the real problems of American health care. Neither the ones I have mentioned already or the others. It does not mention how Medicare and Medicaid and SCHIP have vastly inflated prices (just as the subsidies for higher education have had the effect of inflating tuition fees over the decades) or how the vast web of Federal and State regulations prevent much of a real “market” in health care at all, or how American hospitals are forced to provide free ER cover in spite of the fact that an expensive (although terrible – rather like some British NHS hospitals in fact)) network of government “county hospitals” already exists, or… But of course it does not – because it wishes to add subsidy schemes and regulations, not get rid of them.
Lastly I must mention one other policy suggestion of the Economist.
It suggests abolishing the tax deductibility of employer health care provision – not to switch the tax deductibility to individuals to buy health cover themselves, but because the lower taxes “cost the government” lots of money (all money belongs to the government it seems – although it should kindly allow people to buy toys, not important things like health care).
This massive tax increase is something that even Barack Obama is wary about talking about (although it would only pay for a fraction of the costs of his plans), but have no fear the Economist will hold his hand – it is all about “The Renewal of America” to quote one of the most vile magazine front covers I have ever seen.
As for the Obama plan of one and half TRILLION Dollars (according the Congressional budget office in reality it will grow to far more than that, entitlement programs always do) that will only cover a fraction of the people he says it will. Well if the Economist is truly “economically liberal” it will help lead the fight against this evil – but judging by this article…
Of course it could be claimed that I am being unfair – that the American coverage of the Economist is the worst element in the magazine. Although I have not noticed the Economist denouncing the move to income support schemes and government health cover in India (in spite of the ever growing fiscal deficit) in India – or indeed in any country.
Be that as it may, it is the United States where the alternative of a free market current affairs magazine is most needed – an alternative to the statism of Time and Newsweek and the rest of the mainstream media. And the Economist utterly fails to provide this alternative.
So, friend (again you know who you are), do not ask me to give the Economist a chance again – to do so is not good for my liver.
Thank you for a fine rant. As an American who has decided to get by without health insurance, I look forward with dread to the sort of “mandatory” reforms the Economist favors; it’s soothing to read somebody attacking their dangerous nonsense.
This is truly frightening. Medicare has overrun its initial projected cost by about 10x, if I remember correctly. It already represents an unfunded liability greater than the economic output of the entire world.
And of course there’s Massachusetts, which the Economist alluded to but didn’t dare provide anything of substance:
Just one year into this disaster and the program was already $400 million overbudget.
“As the late Ayn Rand (and so many others) have pointed out, there are no clear principles (things that can be clearly defined in advance) in “anti trust” or “competition policy” in fact the whole thing is an excuse for arbitrary power for the government working with the politically connected.”
Why limit that observation to ‘anti-trust’ laws? This is what is happening with health care itself. I recall that David Blunkett once wrote something to the effect that ‘participation in the political process is freedom’. So there we have it – to be free is to be ‘politically connected’.
I somehow doubt cider is much of antidote, Paul, even if it does come in a nice bottle!
Sorry to ask when the whole article cries out for serious discussion, but:
The Economist or your transcription Paul?
MarkE:
Well, instead of feeling sorry, why don’t you just stick to the serious discussion, and let go of the petty nit-picking?
I despise the Economist and the craven statist fools who write it. I dumped my subscription to them more than a decade ago and I’m extremely glad I did. The wankers who write that tripe are the same lot who have run modern Britain into the ground so far there is damned little likelihood of the country ever recovering.
I wouldn’t line a parrot cage or wrap a fish with that toxic waste!
Obama’s health care plan has advantages and disadvantages as well. He says the new system is for people, so let’s ask them what they prefer – http://www.votetheday.com/healthcare/obamas-health-care-plan-415/
I recently signed up for a high-deductible medical-insurance (“cafeteria plan”) policy; thanks to government regulations, there aren’t many choices available, so this is the best that I can do for my inclinations and circumstances. But I am going to be penalized next year on my MA taxes thanks to (scatology and imprecation deleted) Mitt Romney’s socialized-medicine laws. And that fraudulent, clueless dumb$#!+ is still out there touting his government intervention as if it were in any way a free-market solution.
I am still very humbly thankful to my double-plus-good Congresscritters for protecting my medical and other privacy by abolishing it. In fact, lower than humble; it’s like taking the cover off of my septic tank and reaching my head in for a good whiff.
Perhaps the only good thing about Barack Goddamner’s attempts to finish enslaving America is that the concomitant destruction and change are so rapid that even the shortest attention spans will have trouble filtering it out. Unless they work for The Economist, where that is evidently their job.
One response to the ten-or-more-legal-employees threshold in MA was to restructure law-abiding corporations so as each to meet the limit. This costs extra in paperwork and taxes, but beats layoffs and shutdowns; success, by The Economist‘s standards.
This post was about a periodical (and its pretensions); but, of course, leads off into discussions of the the topic used as an example of the pretensions.
We should observe the demise of periodicals – the dailies are already dead and moldering skeletons; the visual media have begun to atrophy (even in “entertainment”).
What seems to have happened in the case of the Economist, which I dropped this past March after over 55 years of readership and subscription (back when it was on newsprint), was the sructural change from factual reporting with some commentary on the sgnificance of those facts to commentaries with sufficient (selective) facts to support the apparent “expertise” of the commentaries.
Print media has lost its influence (an economic viability) by “waging influence” rather than being a source of reliable information from which consumers could form reasonable judgements.
What is next?
AND, thank you, Mr. Marks !
Well VoteTheDay, I don’t give a damn what people prefer. People have a tendency to vote for things that other people pay for, rather than themselves. Democratically sanctified theft is still theft.
The root of the medical care problem (and oh so many other problems) is people seeking to simply take what they want in life via force (such as politics for example, which is just the intermediated use of force) rather than via civil society and exchange.
That is the problem that even in US the founding fathers didn’t perceived.
For the West to survive it needs a Constitutional limit of how much the State/Gov can get.
I’ve been privately medically insured since my 18th birthday; in my native Oz, my 10 year sojourn/home in Germany and in my new, American-by-choice home in the US.
I’ve made sacrifices to be so insured, as it was (and still) is not inexpensive to be appropriately and sufficiently insured.
It has been, and will continue to be, paramount to me that I remain privately insured, even if it means continuing to make sacrifices on other things.
Socialized medicine in EVERY country I’ve ever lived in (tally now stands at 5) has been abysmally run, poorly serviced, and biblically incompetent. All of which wouldn’t have been so bad, had I not been paying for it DESPITE not actually using it except when there was absolutely no other alternative.
As to your article about The Economist and its editorial, Paul, I’m almost surprised that you bothered. The Economist has been a statist organ almost since inception. No surprise then that the editorial starts with a lie, bullshits something wicked, sets up a strawman argument to make itself look less statist than it is and draws a conclusion that supports socialized medicine and the cypher of a President who lays claim to it.
And by giving the Economist another “chance” you were expecting exactly what??
Reminds me of the old saw about a second marriage being “the triumph of hope over experience.”
For those people who ask why I bother to give the Economist more chances (not that I buy it of course), the short reply would be “because I am stupid”. However, it does call itself a free market publication…….. Although the “Chicago Tribune” came out with a wonderful statement of pro freedom, strictly limited government, principles (mission statement style) only months before it endorsed Barack Obama to be President of the United States.
However, at least the Economist does not devote itself to stuff like the death of a singer with a weird high pitched voice – as both Newsweek and Time have done.
And there is the little point that the Economist article gave me an peg to hang an article on health care upon…..
Marke is correct – my spelling and use of language is vile. And it is just as bad when I am sober.
I am a puzzlehead at heart – I get so obsessed with working out the truth of a subject (and I find this so hard to do – unlike some folk) that everything else (spelling, style, everything) just goes out my head.
Constitutions – lucklady knows well that the U.S. Constitution does strictly limit what the Feds can do (although it does not say “they must spend less than X percent of G.D.P.” or anything like that), but clever politicians and judges have found ways round the Consitution. A friend told me that exactly the same thing has been done with the Constitution of South Africa (and that was not a case of 18th century language).
Perhaps the only way to write a Constitution is to be paranoid – to assume that future politicians and judges will be very corrupt indeed, seeking to twist every word and so on.
The Consitution of Texas is a bit like that – but not enough. The Constitution of Alabama really is paranoid (one reason it is the longest Constitution in the world) – and therefore good.
By the way the above does not mean I support the racist bits of the Constitution of Alabama – before a certain Man of Kent (or his friends) tries to smear me.
I have learned my lesson from my obituary for Ian Smith, that anything can be twisted to appear racist unless the author explicitly denounces racism. So racist bits of the Constitution of Alabama – boo, hiss, very evil (etc). I am not praising the racist bits.
Since the dhimmirats gave us Social Security and Medicare who can not believe that nationalized healthcare cannot help but be a roaring success (based on the success of these other programs) delivering everything Obama promises at a cost that will reflect lower expenses and higher standards.
And if you believe this my associates in Nigeria have a wonderful money making opportunity for you.
Mr. T. Jackson/
I know, I know, two different sets of those wonderful people from Nigeria have even contacted ‘lil ‘ole me and I’ve already sent my money off. Can’t wait for the riches to role in. I’m sitting here waiting with bated breath with a fervency equaled only by my belief that Obama will create world peace, pay my mortgage and give me free health-care–personally. All by New Year’s Eve.
erm, I don’t need no stinkin’ “preview.” (Unless, that is, one views the substitution of “role” for “roll” perfectly acceptable)
Well, well, obviously too much brandy in the coffee here on the West Coast USA, Making a THIRD attempt at lucidity, I should have said “somewhat UN-acceptable” viz “perfectly acceptable” if the statement were to make sense.
Silvio Berlusconi of Italy apparently calls ‘The Economist’ as ‘The Ecommunist’.
Mr B. has his faults, but he has some evidence on his side.
For example, the Economist sneered at his claim that many Italian judges (and so on) were Communists – yet the Communist background of these people is a matter o public record.
So either the Economist staff did not bother to do basic research – or they wanted to cover up the truth.
In the case of the United States the Economist totally opposes freely elected judges prefering system of selection where Bar Assoication and so on have a lot of power – even though the evidence is overwhelming that such systems hand over the courts to the left.
So again, either the Economist staff do not do basic research, or they want the left to take over the institutions of the country.
The Economist is either the accidential or the deliberate ally of “long march through the institutions” Marxists, such as the late Antonio Gramsci.
Of course this may also explain the support of a man with life long Marxist associations to become President of the United States – namely Barack Obama.
This is no LBJ or Richard Nixon (although they were bad enough). Barack Obama is on the side of the enemy – period.
Oh I quite like Berlusconi. It’s not just the Economist, but practically all of the Anglo-American media (left and right) that seems to sneer at him and the Italian people in general for electing him. He definitely has his faults, but I sympathise with him for clamping down on illegal immigration in a forthright way, providing some solution to the garbage problem in Naples, and it should also be noted that while Berlusconi is in power, there is no chance that the Italian state will do a crackdown on tax evasion(which is a good thing- Italy’s economy would suffer badly if there was a crackdown).