Well, it appears certain that the healthcare reform bill will become law. One thing I have been struck by in watching this debate is how strident it has been, among both proponents and opponents of the legislation. As a weak-willed eclectic, I can see arguments on both sides. Life is full of tradeoffs, and so most issues strike me as involving shades of grey rather than being black and white. As a result, I find it hard to envision the people I disagree with as demons.I venture: until November 7th, 2012.
Arthur Okun said the big tradeoff in economics is between equality and efficiency. The health reform bill offers more equality (expanded insurance, more redistribution) and less efficiency (higher marginal tax rates). Whether you think this is a good or bad choice to make, it should not be hard to see the other point of view.
I like to think of the big tradeoff as being between community and liberty. From this perspective, the health reform bill offers more community (all Americans get health insurance, regulated by a centralized authority) and less liberty (insurance mandates, higher taxes). Once again, regardless of whether you are more communitarian or libertarian, a reasonable person should be able to understand the opposite vantagepoint.
In the end, while I understood the arguments in favor of the bill, I could not support it. In part, that is because I am generally more of a libertarian than a communitarian. In addition, I could not help but fear that the legislation will add to the fiscal burden we are leaving to future generations. Some economists (such as my Harvard colleague David Cutler) think there are great cost savings in the bill. I hope he is right, but I am skeptical. Some people say the Congressional Budget Office gave the legislation a clean bill of health regarding its fiscal impact. I believe that is completely wrong, for several reasons (click here, here, and here). My judgment is that this health bill adds significantly to our long-term fiscal problems.
The Obama administration's political philosophy is more egalitarian and more communitarian than mine. Their spending programs require much higher taxes than we have now and, indeed, much higher taxes than they have had the temerity to propose. Here is the question I have been wondering about: How long can the President wait before he comes clean with the American people and explains how high taxes needs to rise to pay for his vision of government?
Monday, March 22
Healthcare, tradeoffs, and the road ahead
Writes Mankiw:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(454)
-
▼
March
(76)
- The broken window fallacy
- Quote of the day
- Drill, baby, drill!
- Where's my tinfoil hat?!
- Taxes per person
- Art of the steal
- Notes from a high school civics class
- Intelligent biblical literalism
- How will health-care reform affect me?
- Mental health break
- Thunder! Thunder! Thunder! Thundercats, ho!
- One gaming machine per child
- Taylor Swift - You Belong With Me (Metal Version)
- Comments on unregulated capitalism
- Photo of the day
- Lady Gaga - Telephone (Chatroulette version)
- Provocation of the day
- Quote of the day
- Public service announcement
- Text 2.0
- This man is clearly ready for the zombie apocalypse.
- Greenest election ever
- Equality shoes
- What do today's philosophers believe?
- Quote of the Day
- Iraq's election result
- Chinese-American comedy
- Google in China, ctd.
- Brief history of health-care reform
- Brilliant
- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistingu...
- 2010 Senate update
- Update on Google's new approach to China
- Healthcare, tradeoffs, and the road ahead
- Some links via Radley
- What the bill does
- Liberals and libertarians
- Anti-capitalism ten years after Seattle
- Buckingham palace guard tips hat to famous sci-fi ...
- The irrational barrier of faith
- Books that have influenced me the most
- Reflections of an Agnostic Christian
- Quote of the day
- NASA Space Flight Awareness
- Laughs
- What of the Senate's new financial regulation bill?
- Yale law student wants government to have everybod...
- If you read one thing on Israel this week
- Taylor Swift parody
- Drones as war porn
- Women on the pill live longer
- Petraeus to New Hampshire
- Ezra interviews Sen. Bayh (D-IN)
- Jeremy Clarkson makes a lot of sense
- If xkcd wrote a song...
- Reverse graffiti
- Coming soon to a theater near you
- Table of birth control method effectiveness
- Evolution and entropy
- Marc Thiessen: full interview
- Quote of the day
- What if everybody in Canada flushed at once?
- Why are Scandanavian welfare states so successful?
- CBO re-scores the president's budget
- Swiss voters reject lawyers for animals
- BSG to the tune of Beastie Boys: Sabotage
- An open letter to President Obama
- Past predictions of environmental catastrophe
- The limits of Rahmism
- Yay Wisconsin!
- Why do the British still have royalty?
- The true cost of the health-care bill, ctd.
- Not an Onion headline
- Why it matters if liberals are much smarter
- How did the financial crisis happen?
- Public support for labor unions at 72-year low
-
▼
March
(76)


"How long can the President wait before he comes clean with the American people and explains how high taxes needs to rise to pay for two trillion dollar wars, the multi-trillion-dollar Bush tax cuts, Medicare Part D and his vision of government?"
ReplyDeleteFIXED! :)
All parties bear responsibility for Medicare Part D.
ReplyDeleteTaxes need to be higher to pay for tax cuts? Hmm. Somehow I think that's a wash.
All parties support the war in Afghanistan.
Iraq is not a perpetual entitlement that will never be repealed.
Details.