Equality, Economics, and Health Care

If one were to stumble upon the website of the SEIU (Service Workers International Union) they would find constant proclamations in support of President Obama’s health care legislation on the basis that it will create “equality” by “eliminating healthcare disparities once and for all”. 

The question that must be asked of the SEIU, and of the Obama administration, is what exactly does equality mean? By distributing wealth to balance the health care system the President could create equality, but that isn’t necessarily a good thing. Simply laying out the need for “equality” sets no standards as to the level of success equality entails. If socialized health insurance makes people equal under less care and equal under government control then the answer is that equality isn’t such a good thing. Ask yourselves; would equality in poverty or at least worse standards than you are already used to be good?

During his lifetime, Milton Friedman spoke often on the issue of “equality” in economics. One specific instance that comes to mind was a documentary clip he was part of in, which he spoke on inheritances and their relationship to economic disparities. The question at hand was whether or not inheritance taxes should be utilized to enhance the lives of poorer citizens who did not have the opportunity to receive an inheritance from their own relatives. At the time, and still today, the prevailing argument by progressive was that large portions of inheritances should be taken by the state and used as social handouts. 
 
Friedman argued heavily against the idea of inheritance taxes and did so through a perspective not considered by many at the time. His focus was placed on posing the question of why progressives demonized economic inheritances but not the inheritance of talent on a genealogical line. To do this he used the example of state funded music programs that only admitted the most talented children in specific musical fields. One specific example he gave was of a young man who was admitted for being a highly talented Violinist. His father had been a world class Violinist, and thus the young man picked up the talent through his family.

According to Friedman, if progressive logic were to be applied, the young man should have never been admitted into the publicly funded music programs. If this young man was blessed with an inheritance of a genealogical nature then shouldn’t the spot in the public program have been handed to someone who didn’t know their music, and hadn’t gained musical talent through their family?
 
The answer of course is no. The best musician should be the one admitted into the high quality class, regardless of what they inherited. If private citizens bestow something upon their heirs then the government’s hands should not touch it, whether it is talent or something of the economic variety. Talent and money are two very different things, however if we are going to have “equality” then things being passed on should be treated in an “equal” manner. This equal manner should occur via the shared opportunity to not have the government intrude upon one’s life. 

For whatever the reason progressives have a propensity for interfering and intruding on the lives of individuals for the sake of “the public good”, or for any of a number of their righteous causes. Yesterday it was inheritance, and today it is the endeavor to create a socialized medical behemoth. Just as equality for the good of the poor was at issue in Friedman’s debate on inheritance taxes, it is the progressive rallying cry today. If you cut through the thousand page bills and all the talking points on the Sunday morning news shows the general philosophy of the health care proposals being put forward by democrats is simple: Take money from some people, and use it to insure the rest of the population. And oh, by the way, if you don’t want insurance we’re still going to make you pay for it.
  
Today though there is one big difference in the debate on health care that wasn’t part of the inheritance tax disputes. While the inheritance debates were about things being passed on from one person to another, today’s debate is about money being passed on from the employer to the person who worked hard to earn it. If there was an issue with something being taken by the government that had been bestowed genealogically then there is definitely an issue with taking something that hasn’t been bestowed but has instead been self created. If someone has worked hard to earn money and buy themselves the best healthcare then it should be theirs to keep; and they shouldn’t have the obligation to provide health care for others.
  
Progressives in response will argue that we must provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. Otherwise how can equality be achieved? They’ll also point out that while the individuals with good health care have had the opportunity to work for a living other people may not have had the same opportunities.

These two points are intrinsic to progressive justification of social programs and wealth distribution, and they thus must be answered with the same question in return: how do handouts create equality in the health care system? They wouldn’t, they’d just create a reliance on the government that will keep people trapped in poverty (as is the case with welfare).  It’s also important to point out that the health care system wouldn’t be “equal” if two individuals were to receive the same healthcare but only one was to work and pay for it.
  
So can we actually achieve equality with regards to health care coverage? The answer is yes, but not specifically in the area of coverage. Instead the focus should be on the opportunity to create work through which people can fund their own health insurance. This can be done through tax cuts on businesses to create more employment, and tax cuts on individual incomes to allow for more private money to go towards coverage. Social Security taxes should also be looked at. Perhaps it would be a good idea to split half of people’s social security tax into their own private health care accounts. The money would be far better utilized by the individuals as opposed to a social security system that won’t be sustainable for people to benefit from 30-40 years from now.

The true answers to inequality don’t rest with the federal government. It was in the mid 1960’s that Lyndon Johnson pushed through his “Great Society” with the aim of spurring social programs at the federal level. Today in 2010 they still haven’t made any dent in poverty, they may only have made it worse. Big cities are also places to look for proof that progressive social policies have failed.  When was the last time a big city was under the leadership of free market thinkers not connected to the fed? They’ve only been under progressive leadership, and they’ve only seen poverty remain a reality. Perhaps it’s a good time to try a different approach to solving economic inequality; the approach of equal opportunity under a diminished government role in people’s daily lives.

Less spending and taxes by the federal government and a renewed focus on letting cities and states along with private citizens handle their own affairs would produce far better results than those we’ve seen. The bigger the government, the worse off the people at the bottom end of society. It’s been that way throughout history, and today is no different. If states can handle their own economies and receive some of the money that currently goes to the federal government they’ll get things like education systems back on track, and eventually citizens will have the equal opportunity to work hard and earn their own health care coverage.