In his 1973 Libertarian Manifesto, the late Murray Rothbard argued that the biggest obstacle in the road out of serfdom was “status quo bias.” In society, we’re accustomed to rapid change. “New products, new life styles, new ideas are often embraced eagerly.” Not so with government. When it comes to police or firefighting or sanitation, government must do those things because that’s what government has (allegedly) always done.
Advertisement
“So identified has the State become in the public mind with the provision of these services,” Rothbard laments, “that an attack on State financing appears to many people as an attack on the service itself.” The libertarian who wants to get the government out of a certain business is “treated in the same way as he would be if the government had, for various reasons, been supplying shoes as a tax-financed monopoly from time immemorial.”
If everyone had always gotten their shoes from the government, writes Rothbard, the proponent of shoe privatization would be greeted as a kind of lunatic. “How could you?” defenders of the status quo would squeal. “You are opposed to the public, and to poor people, wearing shoes! And who would supply shoes . . . if the government got out of the business? Tell us that! Be constructive! It’s easy to be negative and smart-alecky about government; but tell us who would supply shoes? Which people? How many shoe stores would be available in each city and town? . . . What material would they use? . . . Suppose a poor person didn’t have the money to buy a pair?”
It’s worth keeping this fable in mind as the reaction to last week’s CNN–Tea Party Express debate hardens into popular myth. Moderator Wolf Blitzer had asked Rep. Ron Paul (R., Texas) what should happen if a man refuses to get health insurance and then has a medical crisis. Paul — a disciple of Rothbard — explained that freedom is about taking risks. “But, congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?”
At this point, a few boneheads in the audience shouted “Yeah!” and clapped, though liberal pundits and activists imagine they saw an outpouring of support.
Paul calmly replied that he’s not in favor of letting the man die. A physician who began his career before Medicare and Medicaid were enacted, Paul noted that hospitals were never in the practice of turning away patients in need. “We’ve given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves and assume responsibility for ourselves,” he observed. “Our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it.”
Both Mitt Romney and Rick Perry have condemned the response from the Paulistas in the audience and endorsed a more active role for government in health care.
Still, it’s amazing how quickly status quo bias kicks in. Since the 1960s, it has become a given not only that the government should be more involved in areas such as health care and poverty but that these problems remain intractable because the government has not gotten more involved. That’s the premise behind so many of the anti-libertarian questions at the GOP debates. Any rejection of the assumption is derided as a right-wing effort to “turn back the clock.”
Well, let’s do just that for a moment. Charles Murray, my colleague at the American Enterprise Institute, notes that the most remarkable drop in the poverty rate didn’t come after Pres. Lyndon B. Johnson declared war on poverty but when President Eisenhower ignored it. Over a mere twelve years, from 1949 to 1961, the poverty rate was cut in half. Similarly, the biggest gains in health coverage came when government was less involved in health care, i.e., before the passage of Medicare and Medicaid in 1966. Duke University professor Christopher Conover notes that in 1940, 90 percent of Americans were uninsured, but by 1960, that number was down to 25 percent.
Blitzer’s specific error was to use “society” and “government” as interchangeable terms. People need shoes. But that doesn’t require the government to provide shoes for everyone. Similarly, poverty rates should go down. But does that mean it’s the government’s responsibility?
Maybe the answer is yes. But if it is, the burden of proof that the government can do better than “society” should fall on those who, in effect, want the government to win the future by “investing” in shoes — rather than on those of us who are open to the idea of turning back the clock.
So, if Govt has "always" taken 60% of your income, to want them to take less is wrong. If Govt has "always" redistributed income, to want to keep the fruits of your labor is wrong. If Govt has "always" spent more than it collects, for them to stop would be wrong.
Good grief! Has it really been so long since the Soviet Union collapsed we can no longer recognize Communism?
I was talking to my brother when Obamacare was being passed. He asked, "If the Gov't has these expenditures, they have to try something to lower them. It is costing too much". My response was, "The real question, Why is the Gov't even in healthcare?". We had an immediate convert against Obamacare. The problem, my brother has a brain and uses it. He is willing to change his mind based on the changing situation. It seems like over half of the country is incapable of that!
Whenever someone talks about turning back the clock, my mind turns to this old wisdom from C.S. Lewis:
"First, as to putting the clock back. Would you think I was joking if I said that you can put a clock back, and that if the clock is wrong it is often a very sensible thing to do? But I would rather get away from that whole idea of clocks.
We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turn, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man."
The Mr. and I have been self-employed for 30 years, paying hundreds per month for health insurance with a $5K annual deductible per person. Any doctor visit entails additional hundreds of dollars in expense, so we don't see doctors unless absolutely necessary--which is the way it was for everybody we knew when we grew up. We regard "health care" as our own responsibility.
We marvel that some of our fellow citizens regard health care as a "right;" everybody is a patient, and a free patient at that, taking an array of medications for low- or no cost.
Think "Obamacare" is such a great change to the current system?
Imagine if most Americans were like us, writing big fat checks to health insurance companies plus big fat checks for every doctor visit and test. Just imagine.
Gotta say, Jonah is a "thinker." I hadn't looked at this issue in just such a way, and I feel like he buffed up a rock and showed me a diamond.
Anyway, I learned something today - thanks! I guess I'm a victim of "status quo bias" though on a a very unconscious level. Consciously, I'd love to see smaller government, any way we can help make that happen.
While I agree wholeheartedly with your point, I wish you hadn't used the increase in health insurance participation as an example. Employer-sponsered health plans arose when companies needed a means to circumvent the wage controls imposed early in the era cited. I hold gov't intervention in the market responsible for the continuing distortion this arrangement generates.
That is so blatantly correct that I cannot understand how anybody, especially an NRO writer, could ignore it.
It has shown up so big on the private side of Status Quo Bias that when businesses attempt to reduce general fringe benefits, like healthcare plans, the government rushes in to force business to continue providing them.
When government really gets funny is with items that they mandated, gave away, or removed safety requirements for. Like asbestos and cigarettes. Two of many items that government made popular, then destroyed or raped the industries that provided what government wanted.
"Paul calmly replied that he’s not in favor of letting the man die. A physician who began his career before Medicare and Medicaid were enacted, Paul noted that hospitals were never in the practice of turning away patients in need."
Paul "noted"? What's that mean? Does Jonah think Paul *correctly* noted? Do you think Paul was correct? Do you think Jonah thinks Paul was correct?
Be honest and, for a bit of background, Google EMTALA.
This is exactly the sort of thing Jonah was talking about. You seem unable to imagine that hospitals didn't turn poor patients away as a matter of course before a law was passed to prevent it. That there might be an alternative, if not better, way to manage emergency care (or general healthcare, or utilities, or research grants, or what have you) than government control is what the Fable of the Shoes means to illuminate.
Interestingly, in taking your advice, one finds a pretty good rundown of all the problems EMTALA causes (External Link).
I cannot speak for blar, but in a sense, no it did not exist. But your question is badly phrased. Obviously, patient dumping existed at the time the law was passed [Why would an unnecessary law be passed? (Don't answer that!)].
The question is, what caused patient dumping in the first place. I do not think it existed in the 1950's. What caused the problem and its growth was increasing government mandates, requirements, and regulation of "health care", beginning with MediCare.
It was government interference that caused the 'dumping crisis". And it is government intrusion into "health care" that is driving up the cost.
The Law of Unintended Consequences can be illustrated with just about any government program/law.
Excellent, Jonah! I remember when I worked for a small weekly newspaper about a dozen years ago, my publisher brought in a copy of a bill from a hospital that dated back to the 1950s. The cost for the patient's stay was in the range of $50. Wow! How times have changed.
"Blitzer’s specific error was to use 'society' and 'government' as interchangeable terms."
Exactly. And that is the kernel of the entire leftist paradigm. If we can root that assumption out of most people's heads, it'll be conservatism from hereon.
"Duke University professor Christopher Conover notes that in 1940, 90 percent of Americans were uninsured, but by 1960, that number was down to 25 percent."
In 1940, the number of angioplasties, chemotherapy treatments, and kidney dialyses was . . . you got it!
Umm - I think you need to go to logic class. Those treatments didn't exist much in 1960 anymore than they did in 1940. But there were still insurable events from 1940 to 1960. The difference - employer based health care programs mostly as well as a still functioning independent true health insurance market.
He isn't saying how many procedures were or were not done. He is just saying a bunch of people gained insurance between those dates, without the govt saying you had to buy it or offer it.
Follow
