In his column this week, Walter Williams discusses a Ron Paul/Wolf Blitzer debate moment and NY Times columnist Paul Krugman’s reaction to it.
He [Krugman] was referring to a GOP presidential debate in which Rep. Ron Paul was asked what should be done if a 30-year-old man who chose not to purchase health insurance found himself in need of six months of intensive care. Paul correctly, but politically incorrectly, replied, “That’s what freedom is all about — taking your own risks.” CNN moderator Wolf Blitzer pressed his question further, asking whether “society should just let him die.” The crowd erupted with cheers and shouts of “Yeah!”, which led Krugman to conclude that “American politics is fundamentally about different moral visions.”
This is a good example of why I don’t care to watch election debates. This topic deserves more in depth exploration, but the debate format only allows for sound bite responses.
I agree with Williams and Ron Paul. But, I doubt those answers will do much for people who disagree with us. I’m not sure if my responses will either, but here are some other things to consider.
First, I’d like Wolf to clarify what he means by “society.” Members of society are free to do what they like for this hypothetical 30-year-old. Who’s stopping them? Why do they need to be forced through government?
Medical practitioners could donate their time for his benefit. Individuals can choose to donate their money to cover his costs. People can form organizations that raise funds to help folks like him.
But, I think what Wolf really means by “society” is “government”.
It’s a pet peeve of mine when folks use “society” in place of “government”. The underlying assumption is that there are only two options — either the 30-year-old buys insurance or the government comes to the rescue. When you say “society” and really mean “government”, just say “government.”
Second, I’d ask why the 30-year-old decided to not buy insurance? This is rarely discussed, but the answer is important.
Certainly, we could just say the 30-year-old made a bad gamble, but that doesn’t give the root cause. It’s not only a bad gamble, it’s a disastrous gamble. Why he would make such a disastrous gamble? Running red lights is a disastrous gamble also and very few people intentionally make this gamble. Why not?
What if he made his health insurance gamble because he knew government would back him up? That’s called a moral hazard and we find ourselves in a bad position when what is believed to be compassionate government policy actually causes more people to make disastrous gambles. That also drives up the cost of insurance, medical care and government for everyone, as they are left paying for those disastrous gambles (which is exactly one of the key underlying problems driving medical costs in the U.S.).
Third, I’d ask for more information about this 30-year-old. What’s his income? What kind of car does he drive? What phone plan does he have? Where does he live? How much did his TV cost? Which TV service does he have? How much would a catastrophic insurance policy cost him? Enter your zip code on this website to find out. In my zip code, a $5,000 deductible policy for a 30-year-old single male with Blue Cross Blue Shield is quoted at $53 per month.
I wonder, if “society” would have less compassion for him if it found out that he could afford the $50 / month insurance insurance policy, but chose not to buy it so he could have the best data plan for his smartphone.
Apparently, “society” didn’t think much of this woman’s efforts to raise money for her cancer treatments with yard sales, since the local government shut her down. But, it appears that individuals in society have privately and voluntarily taken it upon themselves to help her out. Good for them.
Third, I might ask why “society” should value the 30-year-old’s life more than he valued it himself, as demonstrated by his own unwillingness to insure himself?
I can’t imagine “society” having much sympathy for a driver who died in a car accident because he recklessly chose to run red lights.
This is just another example of where we let poor logic lead us to make bad decisions.
Poor logic: That guy made a disastrous gamble, let’s help him.
Better logic: Let’s encourage that guy to not make disastrous gambles and let’s, through our private actions, help the truly needy.
So, I can well imagine someone like Blitzer saying, “so what do we do when we have a 30-year-old male dying who didn’t buy insurance?”
First, “we” do like the people did for the lady having yard sales. We take private actions to help him, because we are good people.
Then, if he recovers, we take him by the ear and let him know that he should be ashamed of himself for making such poor choices that others had to come to his aid and take away resources for the truly needy.
We let him know that he will be expected to make responsible choices, because next time there are no guarantees of help. He played us for fools once.
Maybe he goes on a speaking tour or gets interviewed by the local news and sends the message to other able-bodied and able-minded folks to not take disastrous gambles because it’s selfish and not worth it.
And, maybe one day he will come across someone who took a disastrous gamble and lost and will do the same for her that others did for him.
Maybe, in the process, he picks up some dignity and reinforces it others.