Jay Cost explains at National Review Online why policymakers in Washington, D.C., should reject a health care reform proposal that amounts to “Medicare for all.”
Single-payer is a very old idea; Harry Truman proposed a version of it back in 1945. It is a testament to the self-conceit of the Left that it fancies itself “progressive” while simultaneously endorsing an idea that has been around for generations. And let us be clear: This is a really bad idea. Even the Washington Post editorial board — no bastion of conservative economic thought — strongly criticized it, saying it would have “an astonishingly high price tag.”
The economic arguments against single-payer are well known by now: It would impinge on individual liberty, negatively affect health outcomes for many, and, yes, cost more than anybody can possibly imagine.
I wish to call attention to the civic consequences of single-payer. It would elevate the medical-services industry to a dangerous height in our government and undermine the republican principle that the people, rather than special interests, should rule. …
… [P]ublic subsidies are a pathway to political influence, creating “special” interests that are often able to guide government policy at the expense of the general interest.
The history of American self-government gives us many examples of how these bargains can go awry. All the way back in 1790, Alexander Hamilton sought to use public creditors as the basis for creating a national currency. He succeeded, but he made the government so dependent upon the speculators that he was forced to bail them out not once, but twice, in 1791 and 1792.
