In the conservative world, we’re fairly used to looking at
wealth redistribution, and refuting any arguments for it. Because we believe in
the basic economic/freedom principle that the person who earns the money should
be the person who decides how to spend that money. (Milton Friedman argued the
point decades ago.)
We’re a little less practiced at talking about, or even
looking at, other forms of redistribution.
A few years ago there was a story going around about an
economics teacher who arranged to “redistribute” grades in the class. The A
students would “share” with the lower-grade students, to even things out—to be
fair. Everyone would receive the class average. On the first test, everyone got
a B. On the second test, everyone got a D. On the final, everyone failed. Why
should anyone work, if the result was going to be squandered on those who didn’t
put in the work? It was, of course, a comparison to socialism. And the final
summary was this:
When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to
work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other
half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going
to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
I’m not sure of the origin, whether there actually was such
an economics teacher. But the story caught on, and various college students
took on the challenge of making videos of people being asked to sign a petition
about GPA redistribution. (George Mason and Carthage, for example.)
So that was about equal opportunity for success based on grades.
For some reason, hard-working students, even liberal ones, are reluctant to
assume it’s unfair to lazy people for them to work hard and thus have greater
opportunity to graduate/get good jobs.
Similar assertions about opportunity redistribution are used in affirmative action. The
argument is, if there is racism, then there is an unfair advantage to favored
races (Asians and whites, typically) and unfair disadvantage to non-favored
races (namely African-Americans and Hispanics). If so, the argument goes, then
there should be some “redistribution” of opportunity based on race—take from
the advantaged races and give to the disadvantaged races, as if people are less
individuals and more representatives of groups that share their skin color.
There was an satirical illustration of this concept, in the form of an
affirmative action bake sale, done on some college campuses (Bucknell and Berkeley), and followed up in a mall by John Stossel. It got the conversation going, and even
those getting the advantage saw the system as demeaning. However, it’s hard to tell
whether the point got across, or whether the very subject of race was so taboo
that discussion was shut down. But that’s a subject for another day.
I saw a somewhat unbelievable poster online, advertising a
panel that would be discussing getting rid of all advantageous opportunities—evening
things out. The panel theme is “No More Success Stories.” Why? Because for
every 1 in a million success story, there are 999,999 left behind. Not kidding.
Pretty sure this is not satire.
So, the question is, should differences in opportunity be
evened out? Should opportunities be redistributed?
The concept behind Obamacare answers those questions with a loud yes. It is a simple fact that some people are healthier than others, and true that these healthier people can
get by with paying less for health care, sometimes even opting to go without
health insurance, or getting only a catastrophic protection policy. Others—the no-longer-young,
the elderly, the already ill or injured—don’t have the luxury of going without
health insurance coverage, or may have to pay more to get it. They are disadvantaged by
less than peak health.
So Obamacare attempts to “redistribute” through financial measures the financial health
advantages particularly of the young and healthy demographic, and make them pay
more so that the older and less healthy demographics can supposedly pay less
than they would. In reality, you’d be hard pressed to find anyone in any
demographic paying less for whatever coverage they had before the law, but that’s
a discussion for another day. The point today is that the law was designed to “redistribute”
good health advantages. And it is true that pretty much every single young
healthy person will be required to cough up significant income that they wouldn’t
otherwise have spent.
This isn’t a surprise. It was part of the discussion before
the Supreme Court; it’s in the transcripts. (I wrote about the ruling before
and after.) The law is a tax on healthy people intended to subsidize the less healthy.
One major problem with “redistribution” of any opportunity
is that it uses some distant, powerful overseer (tyrant) to make decisions best
made by individuals. Most young people are not as financially well off as most
older people, nor as well off as they will be later in their lives. They are paying student loan debts, getting started in their
careers. If there is a time to risk doing without comprehensive health
insurance, they’re at the best time of their lives to do it. Maybe a
catastrophic policy would be wise, if they can afford one. But chances are in
their favor that their money is better spent on something else—and that’s why
so many of this demographic have chosen to spend less on medical coverage.
Obamacare, in essence, forces young healthy people to
impoverish themselves for a product they don’t need in order to help pay a
subsidy for that product to people at the culmination of their career and lifetime
of wealth building who can better afford to pay the higher costs. In the first
year or two, paying the penalty/tax is a lower burden than paying for the
actual product. It’s just money into a black hole, though—no actual benefit to
the young healthy person being extorted.
On top of it all, the failure of the Obamacare website is
just a little too much to believe. Here’s the summary: young people are forced
to buy a product they don’t want, don’t need, and can't afford to help buy
that product for those who are already affording it—and this tech savvy demographic is
supposed to voluntarily sign up for this servitude on a website that doesn’t work.
Yes, that is centrally planned “redistribution” at its finest.
Welcome to tyranny.
No comments:
Post a Comment