My problem with the conservative position on health care reform is that it's all based off a misnomer - the automatic, dogmatic assumption that the unfettered free market is best for everybody.That's simply not true - as recent history has uncompromisingly taught us.
Look at the housing market. Democrats like Barney Franks fought tooth and nail against regulation (which the Bush administration proposed, time and again) and, as a result, the market blew up into a bubble...
...and collapsed.
By this time next year, half of American mortgages will be 'underwater' - with borrowers owing more than their house will ever realistically be worth again.
[Wait - didn't Militant Ginger blame the collapse of the housing market on too much government interference before? Read this post and see if he's contradicting himself. Editorial Bear]
Unregulated, the free market is a permanent cycle of 'boom and bust,' which is is simply not an acceptable model to adopt when dealing with something as essential as a nation's health care.
That's not to argue against private industry, capitalism or the free market playing the largest part in the health care. It just can't be the only part - because if it is, what happens when the 'free market' goes wrong?
Which is does, infrequently, but catastrophically.
Take Social Security, for example. During the election, conservatives often proposed 'privatizing' Social Security, by giving people the opportunity to pay up to 75% of their mandated payroll payments into private funds rather than the Social Security itself.
(In fact, I advocated the exact same thing in March 2008.)
It was a great idea, before 'the crash.' In 2007, 401k and private retirement accounts offered considerably bigger payouts than Social Security, which was (and continues to be) heading towards bankruptcy.
But last year's devastating economic collapse wiped out some people's private savings accounts and 401ks. Mine lost something like 94% at one point - which is terrifying considering that some people were forced to cash in their private retirement funds when they'd lost 50%/60% of their value.
Imagine if they didn't have the cushion of boring, bankrupt, dependable Social Security? Imagine if they'd taken their 75% of payroll payments and put them into those private retirement fund instead? Ask THEM whether the free market worked better than government-run Social Security, when they'd watched almost half of their life savings dissolve away before their eyes.
In this instance, the free market system didn't work better.
And that's the rub, really.
While I believe the emphasis on society should always be entrepreneurship and private enterprise, it's become increasingly apparent that the free market can't be relied upon to 'always be right' - and however bad the government 'solution' to the free market weakness might be, they've usually got enough taxpayer clout to make it work.
Regular contributor Tom, for example, recently used the example of 'cash for clunkers,' suggesting it was a failure:
"Take a look at cash for clunkers. The program is 200-300% over budget, because the government overestimated demand for its services...Are you kidding? By those standards, 'cash for clunkers' was a blistering success!
...and it would be further over budget if it hadn't been shut down early. Payment for the dealers, which was promised to happen in 10 days, has been overdue for weeks, causing several dealers to drop out of the program.
Now, ask yourself... are these the people you want managing your health care?"
It actually got people into the showrooms - and buying cars. That's why it ran out of money so quickly, because it worked!
Certainly, there are criticisms of how slowly it paid out and how bureaucratic it was, but 'cash for clunkers' still boosted sales for GM and Ford in a way that - you guessed it - the free market couldn't.
The 'free market' had led to the virtual collapse of the American car industry, whereas the much-criticized ‘cash for clunkers’ boosted sales for the first time since 2007. That means it wasn’t a failure, judging by it's impact on the car industry..
The simple fact is that the unregulated free market GETS THINGS WRONG from time to time - and, in a mixed economy, the government's there to pick up the pieces.
Now, I'm not advocating a socialist state, or expanding the powers and influence of government until they reach the same level as, say, Britain or France. One of the reasons I love living in America is because it embraces the opportunities of the free market (as well as its risks.)
But I just don't know where the conservative's dogmatic insistence that the free market is always right comes from. It's not.
If the events of the last year have taught me anything, it's that our 'mixed' economy in America is something of a blessing - and that the conservatives who believe the 'free market' is entirely infallible are simply no better than the idiots who believe in socialism or communism.
"Moderation in all things," said Benjamin Franklin. "Including moderation."
