by Nathan Glass
Compassion is one thing and misguided liberalism another. Often there is a wide distinction between the liberal ideal and the actual outcome. The story usually goes like this: an ideal gives birth to a government program which creates an outcome. Note, this is the short story version.
What’s the motivation behind the ideal? Compassion and altruism? or power and control? Are the ideal powered programs achieving the desired outcome?
Note this writing focuses on the liberal idea because they are in the politcal hot seat currently as they have the majority and liberals tout their ideals unlike conservatives in general. In conservative-ville, we call them principles. Regardless, one should always question the underlying motives despite which side one is on.
Fannie Mae is an example of government involvement yielding the opposite result as the initial ideal. The government sponsored private corporation became political and infused with the ideal of providing home loans to lower income Americans – again, not a bad notion itself.
The problem is the mortgage loan market became skewed due to the pressure Fannie Mae put on lenders to give loans. The pressure meant more and more banks were looking for people to give loans to with fewer and lower qualifications. Fast forward to 2008 and we have the housing crisis.
This explanation is far from thorough and while there are a myriad of factors the causal connection between FannieMae and the current housing crisis cannot be denied. The result of this ideal being forced is millions of foreclosures, and bankruptcies to lower income Americans; the exact opposite of the ideal.
The latest example of a liberal ideal gone and going wrong: health care. The liberal ideal is for everyone in America to have access to health care. As most ideals go, it sounds great. Most conservatives would probably agree this is something worth striving to attain.
If health care for all were the true goal, then we must question the liberal Democrats recent actions. Why are they trying to rush a bill through? If everyone wants better health care, then shouldn’t we take the time to do it right. Why is it all or nothing when it comes to their bill? Why are the they not considering alternative plans such as the Republicans which are cheaper and require less government involvement?
Aye, there’s the rub – government involvement. It’s hard from a conservative view not to think the real goal, the underlying agenda must be an increase in power by the government by stretching its reach into health care. Otherwise, wouldn’t we want to take our time to create the best health care package with the lowest cost possible no matter where the ideas come from?
For more on the government expanding health care bill see “U.S. House Votes in Favor of Obamacare” at the Heritage Foundation website (1).
Briefly, a foray into economics: one idea behind government run health care is that private industry has failed so the government must take charge. Consider this basic economic principle: the government can never has as much information as the collective public has. Thus the collective public expressing their knowledge through prices is a far more efficient engine than a government body dictating prices. Free markets allow the most efficient exchange of information through prices; something a government oversite committee could never accomplish. See Russian history book.
If free markets, and capitalism have created cheap affordable products in almost every other industry, why would they not work for health care?
The health care bill marching through Congress will undoubtedly have far reaching econcomic consequences which should be carefully considered. Here’s an example of a trade off in the bill from Senator Mike Rogers:
“Here’s the other trade off. According to the national cancer intelligence center for the U.K. and the Canadian Cancer Registry. Here’s the trade off they picked by having government run health care. If you get prostrate cancer, you have less chance of survivability than you do in the United States. And that’s the same for skin cancer, breast cancer, bladder cancer, cervical cancer, kidney cancer, ovarian cancer, luekemia, and the list goes on and on and on.” (2)
There is always a balance between a free market and the regulations needed to protect those in the free market. The government must regulate to provide security in a market so people trust it and want to participate in it but no more regulation than is necessary. At some point the regulation becomes a hinderance to the market. In the middle is a balance between the open nature of a free market and the closed nature of regulations. This balance is the ideal we ought to seek.
Further reading
In a recent article by John Gordon entitled “Obama and the Liberal Paradigm” (3), he discusses the origins of the liberal movement and what it stood for at its genesis. The discussion moves into modern day liberalism where he shows the mismatch between the liberal view and the reality of today. This article provides a backdrop for the mentality behind the liberal ideals.
On the mismatch between programs and outcome, read Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell. This book serves as a great primer into, well, economics. For recent articles by Thomas Sowell on such topics as health care costs see the Real Clear Politics website (4).
Bibliography
(1) Moffit, Bob and Owcharenko, Nina. “U.S. House Votes in Favor of Obamacare.” The Heritage Foundation. 8 Nov. 2009 <article link>
(2) Rogers, Mike. Speech to Congress. Youtube.com. 16 July 2009. <video link> <http://www.mikerogers.house.gov/>
(3) Gordon, John Steele. “Obama and the Liberal Paradigm.” Wall Street Journal. 4 Nov. 2009 <article link>
(4) Sowell, Thomas. Real Clear Politics. <article link>
