New Day for living Reaganites

What we have here is an (intentional) failure to communicate. I can usually end arguments with young children quickly. If they object to something, I ask them if they want to argue. If they say yes; I say no. If they say no; I say yes. Then we continue the argument thus: yes, no, yes, no, yes, no …. We both get tired of this fairly soon and usually forget what the original argument was about. It seems that many on the left are using this method to avoid debate by turning it into an argument about arguing.

Paul Krugman has written several columns about the congressional health care bills that illustrate that this sort of lack of communication is the problem. Normally if party A says something and Party B states what their objection is, then Party A should address what party B said. With the health care debate, Party A (the left) only repeats their original statements ignoring the objection of party B. They then claim that no coherent arguments are being offered. Then party B (the right), because they got no response, has to repeat their objections, somewhat louder because they feel that party A did not hear them. Then party A accuses party B of shouting and repeating the same old arguments. Well, party A, why don’t you address those same old arguments?

Paul Krugman's dismissal of any contrary views is reminiscent of William F. Buckley, Jr.'s observation that the left says they want to hear other opinions, but then are shocked to hear that there are any other opinions. (The exact quotation is elsewhere in this web site.) In his August 25, 2009 column, Mr. Krugman goes on to attack any free market views as the battered remnant of the failed policies of the Reagan administration. (The somewhat clever title(s) of his column is, "Night of the Living Reaganites." or "All the Presidents Zombies" The Seattle paper had a different headline that the Times, I guess. See NYT version: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/opinion/24krugman.html?_r=2) Here again he dismisses all the achievements of conservative policies by simply stating that they do not exist. (It would take a month to refute all of the misstatements and faulty logic in Mr. K's column. For an attempt see: http://spectator.org/blog/2009/08/24/paul-krugman-clears-throat-new) In my opinion, the shortcoming of Ronald Reagan was that he did not adopt the conservative policies that he so eloquently advocated. Government indeed grew under Reagan. That is certainly not a fault of conservatism but another example of conservatism not being tried.

There have been many coherent and cogent arguments made against a government health care option, starting with the objection that it would soon not be optional because it would drive out private insurance. It has been explained ad nausium how this would happen based upon people and employers making decisions in their economic interest. (No plan that assumes people would act otherwise can ever succeed.) President Obama's only rebuttal is that insurance companies would work like Fed Ex, which competes with the post office. (My and other's sur-rebuttal was made a few days ago - see this blog) Mr. Krugman apparently is saying that this is not even an argument at all. There is the further argument that there would be less incentive for research and development in medicine; and even more importantly, no way to determine how to allocate research resources. Of course the Übermenschkins of control central would claim that yes they can do that, but that is to anticipate the rejoinder that they demure to make. (See von Mises, Economic Calculations in the Socialist Commonwealth; and also The Calculations Argument, an on-line article at Mises Institute, for the argument that no they can't.) Yes Mr. Krugman, the current plans, to the extent that they would involve government action, would result in shortages of some types of medical services.

Economic arguments regarding the inefficiencies of socialism and of government in general can be difficult to grasp. Essentially it boils down to the unhindered market place being the only possible determinate of the best combination of resources to be allotted to every possible use. John Muir said that if we pull on a single tread of nature, we will find it attached to the rest of the world. We too are a part of nature and all of our actions, including economic decisions are interrelated. That may explain the title of Ludwig von Mises' greatest work, Human Action. Destructive government intervention reverberates through our lives destroying or wasting our very limited recourse's. One argument that is easier to grasp is the cost: the current administration is budgeting deficit spending that is greater than that of all previous administrations added together.

Besides economic arguments that government control causes inefficiencies and misallocations of resources (and what are recessions but the inevitable result of such wasted resources); there are social arguments regarding how government would replace personal and family health decisions. The "death panels" objection of Sarah Palin is ridiculed instead of addressed (as everything about Sarah Palin is). It has been my experience in dealing with government that we would be lucky to get death panels. What we would actually get is a denial of treatment based upon some codes read by a computer. If we could appeal at all, it would begin with several hours trying to find the correct faceless bureaucrat. At least insurance companies can ultimately be held to the terms of their policy and applicable law. In the final analysis, the government is de facto and de jure a law unto itself.

The arguments against government control of health care have been proffered for decades if not centuries, as have the arguments against socialistic policies in general. Why cannot the proponents even acknowledge that such arguments exist? To quote Mr. Krugman's column, "Perhaps the most depressing aspect for progressives, however, has been the extent to which opponents of greater choice in health care have gained traction -- in Congress, if not with the broader public -- simply by repeating, over and over again, that the public option would be, horrors, a government program." Mr. K should read about objections to government programs (and objections to the methods of discourse of the left) in chickenshitnewworld.blogspot.