COMMENTARY: Health care and ‘The Virtue of Selfishness’


“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”

The novelist Anatole France’s mischievous observation came to mind when the Congressional Budget Office released its analysis of the Republican cut-taxes/gut-Medicaid bill and its defenders went into a continuous loop talking about “freedom.” Conservatives are fond of saying that freedom isn’t free. This is entirely true, especially when it comes to health care.

Republicans speak of the wondrous things that will happen if they succeed in slaying the monster known as “Obamacare.”

House Speaker Paul Ryan offered this rush of animated words to conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt: “You need to have an individual market where people care about what things cost, where people have real freedom, where those providers of health care services, be they insurers, doctors or hospitals and everybody in between, compete against each other for our business based on value, based on price, based on quality, based on outcome.”

RELATED: See what the nation’s cartoonists are making of, this week.

Ryan spoke to Hewitt shortly before the CBO concluded that under his legislative contraption, 24 million fewer people would be insured over the next decade. Ryan dismissed the CBO in advance by accepting that the coverage numbers would, indeed, drop because people would be able to exercise a newfound right to be uninsured, much as they might be liberated to sleep under bridges or beg in the streets.

“We’re going to have a free market, and you buy what you want to buy,” Ryan explained. “They’re going to say not nearly as many people are going to do that.”

Left-wingers are often cast as dreamy utopians, but it’s Ryan and his allies who pretend they can create a capitalist paradise in health care — something that not one wealthy capitalist country has ever done because the health care market is not like any other.

Older people, for example, are not an ideal market for private insurance companies. That’s why we have Medicare. Lower-income people can’t afford to pay the full cost of a decent insurance policy. That’s why we have Medicaid, and why the Affordable Care Act subsidizes policies from private insurance companies.

Slash Medicaid and take away the subsidies and, presto, the ranks of the uninsured mushroom. There is thus something unseemly about Ryan declaring that he is “so excited” about eviscerating Medicaid. “We are de-federalizing an entitlement, block-granting it back to the states, and capping its growth rate,” he told Hewitt. “That’s never been done before.”

RELATED: Kathleen Parker’s take on the Steve King racist-comments controversy.

Of course, maybe it’s “never been done before” because enough politicians stood up to resist the cruel idea of tossing so many people overboard.

Defenders of this proposal try to argue that health “care” is radically different from “coverage.” They must think the American people are dunderheads.

“Coverage is not the end,” Mick Mulvaney, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Tuesday. “People don’t get better with coverage. They get better with care.”

Well, sure, but try taking your kids to get care from a pediatrician if you don’t have insurance coverage. Or do backers of the Coverage Destruction Act of 2017 just want people to get sicker and sicker until they have to get really expensive care in an emergency room — which may come too late?

Ryan urges people to read his bill. If you do, you’ll realize how many of its pages are devoted not to health care but to tax cuts. According to the CBO, the bill takes $1.2 trillion out of helping people get health care (including $880 billion from Medicaid) and then hands out about $600 billion of that in tax cuts, mostly for the well-to-do and various interest groups, the beleaguered tanning industry being my favorite. This could also be called the Make Inequality Worse Act of 2017.

DON’T MISS: Special report on big bucks paid to local hospital CEOs.

In his youth, Ryan was a devotee of Ayn Rand, whose philosophy is nicely summarized by the title of her book “The Virtue of Selfishness.” She would be proud of her one-time disciple. She excoriated “the draining, exploitation and destruction of those who are able to pay the costs of maintaining a civilized society, in favor of those who are unable or unwilling to pay the cost of maintaining their own existence.”

In other words, government should never take money from the better-off to help lesser souls. In the glorious future created by Ryan’s bill, they will now be even freer to try “maintaining their own existence” without health insurance.



Reader Comments ...


Next Up in Opinion

Was Jeff Davis Avenue named after a different Jefferson Davis?
Was Jeff Davis Avenue named after a different Jefferson Davis?

Pop quiz: Jeff Davis was ________________________. (a) A populist governor and U.S. Senator from Arkansas in the early 1900s. (b) A comedian on the TV show “Whose line is it anyway?” (c) The first and only president of the Confederacy. (d) An artist who creates mementos out of old vinyl records. OK, technically all four of those men were...
Letters to the editor: April 26, 2018
Letters to the editor: April 26, 2018

Re: April 23 letter to the editor, “Mafia? Comey flatters Trump.” I’ve stood blithely by while insults are hurled back and forth between opposing political and social factions without ever saying or writing a word of protest. But now one of your readers has gone too far. As co-captain of the Hooligan golf group in Georgetown, I must...
Commentary: Help pre-K kids manage feelings instead of suspending them
Commentary: Help pre-K kids manage feelings instead of suspending them

What about the four-year-old who tears posters off the classroom wall? Or the pre-K student who threw his shoes? Those are two of the responses we’ve received to our report about the 101,000 times Texas school districts suspended students in pre-K through second grade in a single year. We can imagine how frustrating and disruptive it was for...
Commentary: Austin City Council shouldn’t gut important ethics law
Commentary: Austin City Council shouldn’t gut important ethics law

The Austin City Council votes Thursday on whether to eviscerate one of Austin’s most important ethics and conflicts-of-interest laws. This law requires that at least two-thirds of the Planning Commission, who are appointed by the mayor and council, to be “lay members not connected directly or indirectly to real estate and land development...
Why Austin isn’t getting as much affordable housing money as you might think

Facing an urgent need to fund more affordable housing in Austin, the City Council set its sights on some tax dollars it figured no one would miss. New tax dollars. Specifically, the shiny new tax revenue that materializes when government-owned land, which doesn’t pay property taxes, becomes private housing, commercial...
More Stories