Belligerati

« Now I'm almost certain that it was not a coup | Main | Feedback on your writing »

July 28, 2009

Megan McArdle

The other major reason that I am against national health care is the increasing license it gives elites to wrap their claws around every aspect of everyone's life. Look at the uptick in stories on obesity in the context of health care reform. Fat people are a problem! They're killing themselves, and our budget! We must stop them! And what if people won't do it voluntarily? Because let's face it, so far, they won't. Making information, or fresh vegetables, available, hasn't worked--every intervention you can imagine on the voluntary front, and several involuntary ones, has already been tried either in supermarkets or public schools. Americans are getting fat because they're eating fattening foods, and not exercising. How far are we willing to go beyond calorie labelling on menus to get people to slim down?

These aren't just a way to save on health care; they're a way to extend and expand the cultural hegemony of wealthy white elites. No, seriously. Living a fit, active life is correlated with being healthier. But then, as an economist recently pointed out to me, so is being religious, being married, and living in a small town; how come we don't have any programs to promote these "healthy lifestyles"?

A Long, Long Post About My Reasons For Opposing National Health Care
I enjoyed her basic outline of why she is against national public health care. If you are a generally free market but left of center individual, you might find it persuasive or at least reduce your belief that national health care is a good idea.

However, she makes another point that I disagree with.

It's not that I think that private companies wouldn't like to cut innovation. But in the presence of even rudimentary competition, they can't. Monopolies are not innovative, whether they are public or private.

I'm pretty sure this is unsubstantiated by evidence. Because monopolies are in a position to capture 100% of the returns to innovation in their products, they have more reason to innovate than merchants operating under perfect competition. Now to the extent that monopolies cannot grow their market share or innovation would reduce their profits, they won't use that innovation. Oligopolies are somewhere in the middle, able to reap much of the profits of innovation, but facing enough competition that they cannot ignore innovation even if it reduces total industry profits.

Posted by OneEyedMan at July 28, 2009 1:34 PM

Comments

Post a comment