Great Expectations

As I hear the rising din of calls for universal healthcare, and the necessity of passing legislation this year, a basic truth keeps coming back to me.

While catastrophic care may be something the US can probably afford to supply to all its citizens, government-paid total healthcare is not.

The fact is, healthcare is a consumer good. It is something that is bought and consumed. It has a price, and, in the past, many simply consumed less of it. Especially in older age.

To suddenly guarantee everyone that the government will pay for their healthcare, and that they may consume what they wish, is simply not going to happen. One of the facts of economics is that free resources are prone to abuse.

Many argue, and I agree, that the natural consequence of the Democrat's rush to undermine private healthcare options will be rationing of publicly-supplied healthcare by bureaucrats.

When people are responsible for funding their own healthcare costs, they tend to live more healthy lives. I can remember reading a Journal sob-story of a retired union worker in either steel or autos complaining about losing healthcare benefits. But the ailments mentioned were the type that any individual with common sense would know stemmed from an unhealthy lifestyle while younger. In effect, it seems that much of the health issues of many former union members resulted from their not expecting to ever pay for the consequences of their lifestyle choices while younger.

Simply putting a government brand on this sort of behavior and subsequent healthcare spending won't be affordable. Or change anything.

The fact is, decades ago, people simply expected less in terms of lifetime healthcare. Technology has allowed advances in age as various diseases have become treatable. But to afford these treatments, one has to earn the ability to pay for them.

Even a hundred years ago, there surely were people who did not have access to then-state-of-the-art medicine. People died from illnesses that, theoretically, could have been treated, had they the money.

But sooner or later, everybody dies. Why we should spend increasing percentages of society's wealth to extend lives just because it's possible is unclear to me.

I could live with a government-supplied, actuarially-determined, annual tax credit to fund a health savings account. When the government's contribution is spent, the individual is left to his/her own means.

We can provide some basic level of healthcare funding for everyone, but society can't afford to spend unlimited funds until a person dies. I'd rather have control over my own healthcare decisions, than let a government functionary ration my care.

Wouldn't you?