Comments on: More on the Healthcare Debate

By: Adam

Adam — Sat, 02 Jul 2011 17:43:03 +0000

Thanks – that was a splendid summary of that event. After reading this article, I was thinking that requiring everyone to buy health insurance will likely dramatically increase demand for medical care. If people are forced to buy health insurance, they might as well use it, right? Because the supply of health care professionals is relatively inelastic, the increase in demand will cause shortages, rationing, increased prices, etc. I wonder what Congress will do when these problems arise? If the past is any reliable indicator, Congress may impose even greater control over the health care industry, including more price controls, in an effort to fix the problem it created.

By: Heroes and Lunatics « infoRipple

Heroes and Lunatics « infoRipple — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 21:39:16 +0000

[...] of values is one prerequisite for any utilitarian or economic analysis of the law. For example, in the recent healthcare debate, the contested issue became cost. Pundits and politicians focused on whether socialized health insurance would cost more or less [...]

By: Quincy

Quincy — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 19:38:03 +0000

There was very little debate about the existence of an obligation to support the poor; it was simply assumed without justification. So none of the panelists offered a point-by-point argument. However, Doug Bandow explained his reasoning, in passing, by claiming that America must support the poor and needy because it is part of America’s ethical/moral foundation. In other words, he thinks we must support the poor and the needy because that’s the way the good modern person should behave. You may recognize this from formal logic as an argument which begs the question.

Few people recognize that although an act is moral when voluntarily done by an individual, that same act becomes immoral when government forces individuals to do it.

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 18:56:11 +0000

What were their grounds for stating that the American people has an obligation to care for the Poor and the Needy? Just curious how they find that we have this obligation… obviously there is a basis for the obligation found in Christ’s teachings, but I highly doubt that this was the basis they used.

By: Quincy

Quincy — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 15:49:24 +0000

I don’t often agree with former Chief Justice Burger, but I like the following quote:

“the fact that a given law or procedure is efficient, convenient, and useful in facilitating functions of government, standing alone, will not save it if it is contrary to the Constitution. Convenience and efficiency are not the primary objectives — or the hallmarks — of democratic government … it is crystal clear from the records of the Convention, contemporaneous writings and debates, that the Framers ranked other values higher than efficiency. The records of the Convention and debates in the States preceding ratification underscore the common desire to define and limit the exercise of the newly created federal powers affecting the states and the people.” Ins v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 944-959 (1983).

Efficiency is nice, but other values are far more important.

By: Sean

Sean — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:06:41 +0000

“Instead the panelists relied on consequentialist/utilitarian arguments grounded in economic theories about which plan would maximize healthcare overall.”

Yep, that’s how policy is done. Us economists have taken over! Long live John Stuart Mil!l (or Bentham, whoever was first).