The little government that could
The story of the debacle at Walter Reed that the Washington Post broke has generated commentary all over the place. Some libertarians have suggested that the Walter Reed scandal is somehow connected to the problems of having the government run a health care system. But after reading more commentary on the issue, I’ve come to see that this is just not so. Walter Reed, and every other story like it, provides absolutely no proof that government-provided health care doesn’t work, and this can be proven by ironclad logical argument.
It goes like this:
1. Walter Reed is run by the Army.
2. The Army is run by the government.
3. The government is currently run by George Bush and his administration.
4. George Bush and his administration do not believe that government can accomplish anything, help people, or do anything right.
5. When you do not believe that government works, you underfund it and starve it of resources.
6. When you do not believe that government works, you appoint your political cronies to important jobs as patronage instead of appointing competent people who will do the job right.
7. People who believe in government give it all the resources and funding it needs.
8. People who believe in government appoint competent people who will do the job right.
9. Therefore, the cause of government failure is the failure to believe that government can succeed.
10. Besides, medical care is much better in countries where it’s run by the government, with everyone receiving great care and living much longer than Americans do.
So there you have it- proof that government works if you just elect people who believe that government works. It’s not an incentive problem, it’s not a calculation problem, it’s not a scarcity problem, it’s not problem with the lack of competition or the inherently corrupting nature of power. You just have to have…faith. There is nothing to fear about the future of government run health care as long as we all make sure it’s always run by the right people (which isn’t hard to do, right? right?) Don’t quite know what you’re supposed to do if the wrong people get elected to run it, but who’s worried about that when their health care is free? Having embraced this epiphany, I am now an intellectually honest person instead of a libertarian ideologue. I look forward to voting for competent, enthusiastic believers to run my health care system. Anyone who experiences similar enlightenment upon reading this may thank me in the comments section. Have a nice day.
Comments (17)
Ahh, you finally understand now, Lisa. You were a little slower than the others, but I'm glad you're finally on board.
Published: March 10, 2007 8:25 PM
The flaw in Lisa's argument (yes, I understand she wrote this with tongue firmly planted in cheek) (I hope) is that Bush and his ilk are in in government precisely because they do think it will work; that is, it will work for their own interests.
Published: March 10, 2007 9:53 PM
Sheer brilliance. This brief but powerful post will enjoy significant reuse in my continuing debates about the role of government in our lives. Thanks Lisa!
Published: March 10, 2007 9:57 PM
I would argue that conditions similar to those at Walter Reed can be found in certain parts of the large government run hospital system in New York City.
And if NYC, which is at the cutting edge of the entitlement state movement and has been so for a century, can not find the right individuals to run its hospital system, then who can. No one generally digs too deeply into the situation at the NYC hospitals, since it would embarrass too many left wingers, who, of course, are honest, competent, and well meaning.
Also, have situations similar to the current situation at Walter Reed existed during previous wars? Answering this question would shed light on whether the root cause of the problem is bureaucratic management in principle, or just not having ideologically committed individuals running the system.
While the criticism of the Bush administration is entirely warranted, it is largely politically driven by the Democrats whose overriding goal is to take control of the presidency in 2008.
Published: March 11, 2007 7:29 AM
An amusing post.
This was precisely the argument put forward by Labour throughout the Eighties and Nineties. Labour claimed that the National Health Service was appalling state because the Tories did not believe in it, ignoring the fact that the Tories had for eighteen years pumped in billions of extra cash into that moribund organisation rather than letting it die.
Labour thought belief in the system (and billions of extra cash) would solve the problem. They have failed. Salaries increased but with no improvement in efficiency and treatment: largesse for the NHS’s heavily unionised workforce. The supposed fall in waiting lists is a statistical illusion, created by manipulating certain waiting lists that have a disproportionate effect on the statistics - but letting others increase such that overall we have to wait longer for our operations. Availability of the latest drugs lags far behind other nations. The NHS is now facing a cash crunch, unable to match supply and demand…I wonder why? Lack of a price medicine, surely not. It must be lack of belief!
Published: March 11, 2007 9:37 AM
I actually don't find this post to be absurd or funny because I've actually heard liberal Democrats use this argument to explain away why things like FEMA failed New Orleans or social security is falling apart.
For me, this is a purely matter of fact account of what you must believe to support these programs and assume away any need for freedom or economic insight.
By the way, this reasoning is going to be what justifies for statists running the entire country like an army (or post office), which is how the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany were run.
Published: March 11, 2007 10:34 AM
So the problem isn't giving people power over other people, it's simply a matter of giving such power to the "wrong" people. Hmm....
Published: March 11, 2007 12:19 PM
Most branches of the government are full of burnt out workers who more or less can't be fired. It's dragging them down. Bush is a business man and understands this issue. Many believe Bush is purposely driving work away from government entities to allow them reason to trim off dead weight workers by laying them off and later hire more talented and enthusiastic workers in thier place at more reasonable wage rates.
This may be the only positive thing GW ever does for our country. And he's able to throw some work at his friends' companies along the way.
Published: March 11, 2007 2:48 PM
Angelo, I don't find the "logic" funny either, but it is absurd. And I don't think you have to look at just "liberal democrats" to hear this peculiar type of "logic", as this argument is explicit in the democratic party's platform every two years at least since 1996 and especially since 2000.
Published: March 11, 2007 4:23 PM
Dennis, we just ignore examples like you mentioned, because there are obviously still (supposedly) anti-government types active in the New York area. These types of bad people are responsible for the good and decent pro-goverment people not being able to get proper funding and do as swell of job as they otherwise would be doing.
Published: March 11, 2007 4:25 PM
All that's missing from Ms. Casanova's post is the most venerable capstone analogy of them all:
"If a flubby fellow, who can barely muster five push-ups, does emerge from basic training able to do forty of them, then the "Magic of Boot Camp" has, once again, made itself plain. Surely, there is the same magic in public health care!..."
Published: March 11, 2007 4:54 PM
It was an overstatement to say that it wasn't absurd, because it is absurd. Casanova just isn't taking statist logic to absurd heights that they themselves don't take it. I've debated with liberals who literally said that FEMA didn't work in New Orleans because Bush and Brown were such small government conservatives that they didn't fund it and manage it properly.
Yeah, and if only Trotsky or Bukharin had ruled instead of Stalin. Or better yet, myself.
Published: March 11, 2007 5:25 PM
Angelo, I know she didn't take it to new heights -- I don't believe that was her intent. She just repeated the mainstream position that many people hold. Now maybe I've been around a university too long, but I too know many people who make this argument and I don't know too many people who would reject this argument if/when it is presented to them.
Published: March 11, 2007 7:17 PM
I don't know why this couldn't work- after all, our money is powered by nothing but belief! You used to be able to trade paper money in for gold, but ages back. However, people became so used to using paper, that they didn't worry when they could only use paper! This barbarous relic of reality, gold, will soon be cut out altogether, allowing our wonderful rulers to set any money value they like! (oh, that's right, they've already done that!) So why couldn't blind faith in government medicine be just as good as it has proved to be with money? Oh, ye of little blind faith!! Tsk, Tsk! By using blind faith, we'll also be able to cut back on surgery and expensive drugs (Yes, placebo trials have proven that rubbing them will cure cancers as well as warts, dear patient- no need to use invasive surgery at all!)
Faithfully yours, nick
Published: March 11, 2007 11:13 PM
Walter Reed?
You should see the Government-run hospitals in India. Its better to stay at home with your disease than visit one of these.
Published: March 12, 2007 2:17 AM
Lisa, I enjoyed your post and think your tongue in cheek arguments about gobernment programs generally are persuasive.
However, let's not forget other little lessons that can be drawn from the Walter Reed debacle, relating to the abuse of power and privilege by the Bush administration and their lack of any real concern for the health and well-being of soldiers returning from a war which the elite does not fight but profits from enormously. One part of their reaction has been to punish the soldiers for speaking and to cut off the flow of information from the hospitals.
The administration (to be fair, under Clinton as well) has consistently also shown little regard for the long-term health of soldiers -they throw money at minimizing battle death casualties, but have the VA has long been neglected and issues about the huge health risks posed by depleted uranium kept hushed and uninvestigated.
Published: March 12, 2007 8:11 AM
Kishor, that sounds like the county-run hospital in Nassau County (suburban NYC), the worst healthcare facilities I have ever seen, yet they still receive millions in funding (do a search on Nassau University Medical Center) for the latest scandals involving a third-world medical system operating on the taxpayer dime amidst many excellent private / charitable hospitals in one of the wealthiest counties in the world. The quality of care varies inversely with the degree of taxpayer funding everywhere, because there is simply no incentive to provide quality service.
Published: March 13, 2007 10:59 AM