|
True enough, the Republicans have argued that changes in the general law had to be made, but those changes weren't done or proposed, nor was the situation properly analyzed to trace the root of the problem. Democratic government has a tendency to be lumbering, slow, and prone to error. The fact that what is merely an attempt at reform and repeal is practically impossible due to political realities shows how difficult correcting imperfect systems can be. Drastic action naturally produces a ton of problems, none of which, I am sure, will be so easy to remedy. When an industry can make more money by not doing what it charges its customers for, we need to question why this is: why isn't competition driving prices down? as the only organization removed from market forces is the government, the problem very often lies there and is a place to start looking; are these circumstances temporary or permanent? if the former then we need only better understand the conditions so that it may be shortened and not repeated, if the latter then we need to understand why that is, as well. Seriously flawed social systems are forced by market forces to correct themselves over time. The ones that persist have had government support. It's easy to forget that all those segregated restaurants were required by law to serve one race, or provide separate accommodations. Social ostracism is what changes the loose ends, legislation tends to come late. People in the Middle Ages were barbaric and cruel by our standards, but over time with increased material wealth and education, their temperaments became more civil as we had the means for more complex social institutions--contrast 19th century man with 14th and you'll find no legislation to play nice--people were moral without government intervention, and tolerance became increasingly more inclusive (and still does) as time went on. South Africa's apartheid was actually a cost borne rather than a cost saved without even considering the practically universal embargo against them. That was simply a government not of the people and by the people, but of an elite--the economy suffers when populations are confined to restricted areas to live, and work, and businessmen aren't allowed to set up shop on account of their race. That was a sin of government which restricted choices well beyond a reasonable point. School busing, does not compare in that whatever its costs may be, they do not measure up to what this plan will, and would not quite risk making our currency insolvent in the long term. The National Guard was needed in the south because the local government was against desegregation--police refused to do their job and protect children from mobs; the governor of Alabama himself stood in front of the door. Expense had nothing to do with anything, order was simply being restored. That you argue health care costs will flow in a 'saner, more efficient manner', I can only say that I hope the government appoints the world's smartest, most powerful psychic to direct the budget, because mere humans cannot solve the complex riddle of resource distribution the way that a bunch of idiots responding to prices in a self-interested pattern can. A bee hive can solve math problems (e.g. predict where a sugar bowl will be when moved away from the hive in a patterned interval) that no bee could do by simply responding to chemical signals. Humans responding to price fluctuations do much the same; but the problems we solve together can never be grappled by consciously directed men such as ourselves. Don't dis the market, it is the most ruthless and efficient logistics manager the world has ever known; it has allowed mankind to flower with a phenomenal growth of prosperity and political freedom yet seen; and it was discovered not by design, but by accident in the Italian Renaissance and has allowed man to have progress in every subsequent generation, a fact that we now often take for granted. Its only flaw is that it leaves those unable or unwilling to help themselves to croak, and that is where we should step in out of decency. But to say that we'll do so better, more efficiently, or even come close to a manageable level of expense is completely false. We should keep the numbers of people who need help to an absolute minimum by recognizing this tool that seems to be viewed more as a barrier to progress, rather than the thing which allowed for it.
|