I just finished an enlightening phone call with my congressman’s health policy advisor. I had called to give my opinion of an “official business” mailing I had just received (“official business” being the cover for a taxpayer-funded campaign flyer).
No matter how hard I tried, from the staffer’s point of view, our debate was over which party has the best plan to lower healthcare costs. I repeatedly noted that her argument begs the question — she assumes that government is the solution. Regardless of what I said, she wouldn’t accept my insistence of a logical fallacy. And she kept coming back to her main premise: Healthcare is too expensive.
So I pulled that thread a bit.
I asked her to explain why healthcare is so expensive. “Many reasons,” she replied.
“OK. Since you are the policy expert, give me the top reason,” I prodded.
To this she responded, “The incidence of illnesses like type-2 diabetes is on the rise. We need to have people live healthier lives.”
I walked her through what I thought was her logic: Since healthcare is too expensive, due to (inter alia) folks not taking care of themselves, government must step in (as there is no other means to lower costs) to manage costs and change lifestyles.
“That’s right,” she said without hesitation.
So there you have it. Assume that healthcare is too expensive and that government is the solution, and the next logical step is an increased nanny state.
“Just another crisis to feed the Leviathan,” I thought.
I reminded the staffer that she is a Republican and that Republicans are supposed to be against government intrusions into personal matters (I do not believe that statement, but I like to hear the rhetorical gymnastics when the political class is confronted with their own hypocrisy).
She rewound back to the beginning, “But healthcare is too expensive.”
It’s coming. The folks in DC will be snooping in my pantry within 5 years, regardless the party. And it will be under cover of reducing healthcare costs.
Notes:
The reason I initially called was to discuss statements in the flyer where my congressman claims to support, among other things:
– Permitting students to remain on their parent’s policy through the age of 25
– Continuing the fight against breast cancer by ensuring the availability of annual mammograms.
I asked, “Are there any current federal or state laws that prohibit students from being on their parent’s policies or stop women from seeking mammograms?” The staffer couldn’t name any.
I said, “Then are you permitting and ensuring? Or are you forcing?” Silence.
I then continued, “So, who is going to pay for these new regulations?”
She responded, “Well, they really don’t cost anything. Consider 25-year-old students, they are likely very healthy. They’ll improve the pool of insured. So there is no additional cost for keeping them on the policy.”
“If that were the case, wouldn’t insurance companies already be doing so in order to attract more business?” I added, feeling my head begin to spin.
“Yes. So, why not just make it law?” was the non sequitur.
That’s when I realized that it was time for SpongeBob Squarepants — a return to a reality that I can understand and enjoy.
{ 10 comments }
Among other things, diabetes is on the rise b/c people can offload the costs of being a fat slob on others, either by direct transfer payments or insurance companies barred by law from discriminating among risks. Boobus americanus would be incentivized to put down that Mountain Dew and that bag of Cheetos if he realizes he’s paying all the freight for it.
…so you were somehow surprised and frustrated that a petty Potomac political bureaucrat didn’t accept your casual telephone arguments… in opposition to those of his Congressional boss.
That outcome was entirely predictable and certain.
Did you really think you could influence the outlook/actions of your congressman (or even his staff) with a phone call and mere rational discussion ??
I would respectfully submit that it is a severe naivete on your part causing your frustration.
Pantry-snooping is being used here as a wonderful example of one of Mises’ most important points – that intervention leads logically to intervention. Yet it also serves as an example of yet another point of Mises’ – the inability of any intervention, no matter how well-intentioned (in theory) the bureacrats might be, to achieve the goals it has (or, more cynically, claims to have.) This point is a much better selling point, at times, to statists – the average statist really does want, say, cheaper healthcare and a healthier public. Mises shows that we can demonstrate that his means do not lead to his end.
Consider – what will the pantry-snoopers be looking for? We can guarantee that it will be the wrong thing. They will look for high-fat foods, throw out oils, and so on. Yet this is exactly the opposite of what we should do. How is it that the government recommended plan is exactly the opposite of healthy eating? Because of the influence of special interest groups, none of whom can sell a damn thing based on Weston Price. There are no products – just meat, grains, and produce, oh, and a host of foods that the corporate interests want banned, such as milk. So we arrive at this odd juncture where we believe, as a society, that incidence of disease has been rising for the last 50 years, and several previously unknown diseases have become common in that time frame – because of foods we ate thousands of years ago, and that the solution is to restrict our diets to only foods that first became available in the last 50 years.
This problem cannot be addressed by saying “oh, well, so you’d be ok with it if government threw out sugar?” First, of course not – but second, you’re describing an impossible situation (unless they do it in favor of some patented artificial sweetener.) It is simply inconsistent to picture some government that, in addition to perfect beneficience, also has perfect knowledge. It is part of how government works that drives it to this situation.
Danner,
I like to engage them every now and again — it’s a weakness
What was interesting is her willingness to outline the plan. What is sad is that I expect very few Americans to question her plan the second time through.
Oh, sure, they may seem shocked — initially, anyway. But given time, and a second hearing, and most Americans will likely agree that my pantry is their business.
With respect to Danner, I applaud your taking the effort to make a phone call. Danner’s opinion may make perfect sense to Danner. (And I even agree with him.) Nevertheless, there is nothing quite like real-life evidence to test one’s hypothesis, rather than simply spouting whatever convictions one has. The world benefits from real data. And who knows? Perhaps someone who disagrees with Danner may read your account and consider…
With respect to Danner, I applaud your taking the effort to make a phone call. Danner’s opinion may make perfect sense to Danner. (And I even agree with him.) Nevertheless, there is nothing quite like real-life evidence to test one’s hypothesis, rather than simply spouting whatever convictions one has. The world benefits from real data. And who knows? Perhaps someone who disagrees with Danner may read your account and consider…
Speaking of diabetes, anyone ever find it darkly humorous that the rise of type 2 diabetes coincides with an increased presence of high fructose corn syrup in foods, which itself coincides with corn subsidies and tariffs on foreign sugar to make it more advantageous to use? Another fine example of government as the problem proposing itself as the solution.
“Goddard E. Lewko
Speaking of diabetes, anyone ever find it darkly humorous that the rise of type 2 diabetes coincides with an increased presence of high fructose corn syrup in foods, which itself coincides with corn subsidies and tariffs on foreign sugar to make it more advantageous to use? Another fine example of government as the problem proposing itself as the solution.”
Did you see Food Inc. ? I wished that movie highlighted more on that point than government regulation.
‘Advisor’ in policy advisor is the same cover as in mortgage advisor, interior decoration advisor, and car maintenance advisor. These are not advisors, these are sellers of goods. Policy advisors sell govt. policies so no private policy i.e. no policy doesn’t fit in their vocational mindset. Therefor, blaming these people for their logical inconsistencies totally misses the point imho.
Comments on this entry are closed.