« Cult of Personality | Main | Man of the People »
September 08, 2005
Op-Ed of the Day
But these are chronic conditions, and even many of us who argue for universal health coverage have grown inured to that distinctly American indifference to the common good, to our radical lack of solidarity with our fellow citizens. Besides, the poor generally have the decency to die discreetly, and discretely -- not conspicuously, not in droves. Come rain or come shine, we leave millions of beleaguered Americans to fend for themselves on a daily basis. It's just a lot more noticeable in a horrific rain, and when the ordinary lack of access to medical care is augmented by an extraordinary lack of access to emergency services.
Even if we'll never win the national-greatness sweepstakes for solidarity, though, we've long been the model of the world in matters infrastructural, in roads, bridges and dams and the like. But the America in which Eisenhower the Good decreed the construction of the interstate highway system now seems a far-off land in which even conservatives believed in public expenditures for the public good. The radical-capitalist conservatives of the past quarter-century not only haven't supported the public expenditures, they don't even believe there is such a thing as the public good. Let the Dutch build their dikes through some socialistic scheme of taxing and spending; that isn't the American way.
September 8, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/19450/3147910
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Op-Ed of the Day:
Comments
"Even if we'll never win the national-greatness sweepstakes for solidarity, though, we've long been the model of the world in matters infrastructural, in roads, bridges and dams and the like."
This is a joke, right?
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Sep 8, 2005 1:52:16 PM
Meyerson writes that conservatives today do not support "ublic expenditures for the public good." However, he seems hopelessly confused about what is and is not a public good.
Public goods, as economists use that term, are goods or services whose benefits accrue not just to the person purchasing them but to everyone. Thus, no one has any incentive to purchase them. National defense is a great example. If I pay for the army all by myself, it defends everyone else, too, even though I'm the only one paying for it. Levees that protect an entire city are another fine example. The most fervent advocates of small government believe that the proper - indeed the only proper - function of government is to pay for public goods.
Most of the services that liberals like Meyerson want the government to provide are not "public goods" at all but income transfers. Health care is a good example. Everyone has an incentive to purchase their own health care because that purchase benefits them uniquely and not everyone else. When the government taxes me to pay for your health care, that's an income transfer, not the government providing a public good.
Hope this clarifies things a bit.
Posted by: DBLDBL | Sep 8, 2005 2:11:06 PM
oops DBLDBL you hve confused public "goods" with the public (or in Locke's phrase "common") good. And indeed those things which you are taxed for which direcdtly benefit someone else (lets say health care) does indeed contribute to the common good.
Your clarification is nonsense.
Posted by: skylab | Sep 8, 2005 4:11:54 PM
Health care actually is a public good.
There are specific, measurable benefits to society in having easily available health care. I - as an individual - benefit if my neighbors are in good health, if corporations want to locate their factories nearby because they can afford health care for their workers (see autoplants moving to canada) etc. If I'm healthy enough to be a productive member of society, that benefits you - and if I'm not, that hurts you.
Of course, health care is ALSO a private good, but that's what's tricky about it.
But the notion that they're not public goods is absurd, and displays a particularly weak grasp of the difference.
Posted by: Ronaldinho | Sep 8, 2005 5:49:05 PM
No no no. See, DBLDBL has it exactly right: health care is only a private good. This is true because "germ theory" is just a theory, foisted off as fact by radical Pasteurists onto unsuspecting children in elementary school. As the responsible, even-handed and not-at-all second-rate scientists at the Discovery Institute have realized, there is another, equally valid theory: "Intelligent Contagion". IC postulates that the process of dying choking on your own bodily fluids is too complex and, well, big to be the work of alleged micro-organisms "too small to see." Therefore, illness and disease must be the work of an Intelligence, who is trying to communicate His Divine Displeasure with the lifestyle of the afflicted by smiting him with Plagues. (The Discover Institute of course takes no position on which angry bearded sky-god is doing the smiting-- we are scientists after all.)
So you see, it is just as scientifically valid to say that people calling for "universal health care" are simply selfish and deluded: money and so-called "drugs" will not help them, when obviously their only hope is to appease the deity afflicting them. And likewise, it is practically outright theft for them to demand money for "care" from people who, by nature of their less sinful lifestyles, are simply never going to fall ill.
Simple, really.
Posted by: Doctor Memory | Sep 8, 2005 9:30:00 PM
Doctor: Do you see any difference between infectious diseases and, say, heart disease? I can see the public interest in providing for clean water to prevent cholera outbreaks, say, or for immunization to prevent smallpox plagues, but what is the public interest in preventing heart disease?
Posted by: DBLDBL | Sep 9, 2005 10:12:38 AM
>>>See, DBLDBL has it exactly right: health care is only a private good. This is true because "germ theory" is just a theory, foisted off as fact by radical Pasteurists onto unsuspecting children in elementary school.
I'm sure the good Doctor was joking here. But I'm sad to report that I've heard this actual line stated by people who *weren't* joking.
Just a quick excerpt:
>>>Also, if we hope to influence public opinion about vaccination, we have to begin now to offer another theory that explains observations and information in a way that is different from the currently accepted construct; a theory that does not suggest that disease is transmissible between people, nor that a drug must be mandated to prevent it.
http://www.garynull.com/documents/accentonadvocacy.htm
Posted by: Mike Cane | Sep 9, 2005 3:13:10 PM
one could say the public has an interest in preventing orphans. it may seem trite to someone like this DBLDBL, but there is a public interest in families that have living members as opposed to dead ones. if he can't see the public good in this, then let's all get together and kill the greedy jackass.
Posted by: chris from boca | Sep 9, 2005 4:57:59 PM
The Government should provide for its citizens. Everything- Jobs, Housing, Education, Food, Entertainment, Medicine, Air, etc.
Govern means control. Let's control everything.
hmm...
But hmm how to balance a person's freedom and a govenment's control?
So we have the problem of people trying tell others what to do.
Who wants to follow orders that are not in your own selfish interests?
Donate my hard earned wealth so another doesn't need to work, to suffer?
Hmm.
No easy solution....
Posted by: Kevin Landry | Sep 10, 2005 9:12:32 AM
