Healthcare, Tradeoffs, and the Road Ahead

Greg Mankiw: Healthcare, Tradeoffs, and the Road Ahead

Well, it appears certain that the healthcare reform bill will become law. One thing I have been struck by in watching this debate is how strident it has been, among both proponents and opponents of the legislation. As a weak-willed eclectic, I can see arguments on both sides. Life is full of tradeoffs, and so most issues strike me as involving shades of grey rather than being black and white. As a result, I find it hard to envision the people I disagree with as demons.

Arthur Okun said the big tradeoff in economics is between equality and efficiency. The health reform bill offers more equality (expanded insurance, more redistribution) and less efficiency (higher marginal tax rates). Whether you think this is a good or bad choice to make, it should not be hard to see the other point of view.

I like to think of the big tradeoff as being between community and liberty. From this perspective, the health reform bill offers more community (all Americans get health insurance, regulated by a centralized authority) and less liberty (insurance mandates, higher taxes). Once again, regardless of whether you are more communitarian or libertarian, a reasonable person should be able to understand the opposite vantagepoint.

In the end, while I understood the arguments in favor of the bill, I could not support it. In part, that is because I am generally more of a libertarian than a communitarian. In addition, I could not help but fear that the legislation will add to the fiscal burden we are leaving to future generations. Some economists (such as my Harvard colleague David Cutler) think there are great cost savings in the bill. I hope he is right, but I am skeptical. Some people say the Congressional Budget Office gave the legislation a clean bill of health regarding its fiscal impact. I believe that is completely wrong, for several reasons (click here, here, and here). My judgment is that this health bill adds significantly to our long-term fiscal problems.

The Obama administration's political philosophy is more egalitarian and more communitarian than mine. Their spending programs require much higher taxes than we have now and, indeed, much higher taxes than they have had the temerity to propose. Here is the question I have been wondering about: How long can the President wait before he comes clean with the American people and explains how high taxes needs to rise to pay for his vision of government?

Amen! This sums it up for me very well.


Comments

13 responses to “Healthcare, Tradeoffs, and the Road Ahead”

  1. The real question is, if he (or whoever) does suggest raising taxes, will the American people be adults about it?
    The same question can be applied to spending, of course.
    The prognosis doesn’t look good on either front.

  2. I wouldn’t call it a “tradeoff” because you are not really getting a quality product in return. As in any other market, once the demand overwhelms the system, decisions will start to be made on who gets what kind of care, when, how, etc. The concern about care children and old individuals will become reality soon enough, since the are “not productive members of the society.”
    The “life boat game” anyone? 🙂

  3. Travis, what I find most troubling about Obama is a seeming unwillingness (inability?) to get out in the public and develop a consensus/enthusiasm around difficult decisions. It is mostly flowery speeches when he gets out all. Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Reagan all had this leadership quality. Roosevelt and Kennedy had the ability to bring Republicans on board and Reagan had the ability to inspire Dems. People can be inspired to embrace difficult choices but I seriously question Obama’s ability to do this.

  4. Virgil, I think that gets into the question of whether it will all actually work the way it is portrayed and I share your skepticism. But taking Dems at their word I think Mankiw’s take is solid.

  5. Thanks for this, Michael.
    As I mentioned elsewhere today, I am just weary (and wary) of folks being reluctant (unable?) to clearly spell out the truth about this — the real benefits, the real consequences, the real costs, and real lies.
    …more than once the image of the Goose that Laid the Golden Egg comes to mind … only with it slain in the attempt to take its eggs before they are produced….

  6. And for me, Peggy, there is always what we think we know … giving the benefit of the doubt that proponents are being open and honest about what they think is in the bill … and what the actual impact of the bill turns out to be. So even when folks are honest it doesn’t mean their right. I think there is enormous downside risk in sweeping changes like this.

  7. “I like to think of the big tradeoff as being between community and liberty.”
    Not much of a tradeoff. Just ask ol’ Ben Franklin: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
    We lose our liberty – in being required to buy health insurance, whether we want it or not; we lose our safety – in having to suffer the inevitable cuts that will surely be coming.

  8. Rob Decker Avatar
    Rob Decker

    Thanks for the link, Michael. Who does Mankiw think he is, being so reasonable about this? 🙂
    Interesting assessment on communitarian vs. libertarian. But many of us “communitarians” don’t support the bill, and get frustrated at this false dichotomy. As you’ver frequently mentioned, caring about the community doesn’t mean going to the “big fix” and the big but remote institution.

  9. Yes, Michael…and I agree totally about the sweeping changes with unknowable real consequences. There are always so many more variables than can be accurately be factored in.
    It is so very challenging to have a conversation without assumptions of being correct, when no one has (or can have, for that matter!) the big picture fully in focus.
    Is this part of what Jesus meant when he said that we will always have the poor with us? I wonder…. I worry when we try to legislate morality and make a faceless institution take the rightful place of generous neighbors and those who follow the way of Jesus when it comes to caring for those in need.
    It is complex….

  10. I’m not sure anyone can do that anymore. I certainly don’t sense any willingness on the part of Republicans to even entertain being brought on board, for anything.
    I doubt it was ever as rosy as that anyway. People have been crying “socialism” since it was invented. Roosevelt and Kennedy (and even Reagan for those my age) have the haze of history around them. Their actions seem inherently right, even inevitable.
    I’ve never seen people inspired to embrace difficult choices.
    Why do I sound like the government-doubting cynic now, and you like the idealist?

  11. A comfortable poverty is slavery, both to the comfortably poor, and those who are forced at the point of a gun to provide it.
    Yesterday, the democrats in congress deepened the degree to which everyone in this country is enslaved. Soon Barry will deepen that slavery further.
    The good news is that forcing a private citizen to purchase a specific product, not as a cost of a priviledge(driving), but as a cost of existence, is absolutely unconstitutional. I believe the Supreme Court will overturn this travesty.

  12. ” I believe the Supreme Court will overturn this travesty. ”
    Perhaps. But the unfortunate thing is that they can do nothing until a case is brought before them. Some poor soul has to suffer some sort of damages (perhaps damages in the extreme), then take it to a local court. Then begins the long process through higher courts toward the Supreme Court. A decade may pass before they hear the case – if they decide to hear it at all.
    If we built airplanes the same way, we’d first build one, let it take on passengers, then if it fell from the sky we’d start thinking about fixing the design.

  13. You may be right but the Attourney’s General of at least 4 states are planning on submitting their lawsuits within an hour of barry’s signature tomorrow. There is significant speculation that the Supreme’s will fast track it the way they did the Bush Gore election. The bill could be killed within a couple of months.
    One can only hope.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading