Congress searches for a free lunch

Democrats are having an unpleasant run-in with the immutable laws of economics:

As Democrats prepare to take up health care legislation on the floor of the Senate and the House, they are facing tough choices about two competing priorities. They want people to pay affordable prices for health insurance policies, but they want those policies to offer comprehensive health benefits.

These goals collide in the bills moving through Congress. The different versions of the legislation would all require insurance companies to provide coverage more generous than many policies sold in the individual market today. That is good for consumers, Democrats say.

A frighteningly large percentage of the Democratic party appears to be simply economically illiterate (although Republicans like to give them a run for the money on a rather frequent basis). Apparently many are just now discovering there is no such thing as a free lunch, a fact most of us realized fairly early on in life. Things must be paid for and you can't get something for nothing. The government can aim for better coverage, and it can aim for lower costs, but it can't do both.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico reveals himself to be especially deficient in his economic understanding:

Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, said the federal government had to specify coverage levels because the benefits under many existing insurance policies were inadequate.

“We have more than 46 million people who are uninsured,” Mr. Bingaman said. “We also have a substantial number who are underinsured. Although they have coverage, it is so bad or so inadequate that if they really get sick, they find they cannot afford the health care they need.”

What Bingaman doesn't seem to realize is that the "underinsured" he decries are purchasing insurance which fits their budget. I'm sure all of them would prefer gold-plated insurance plans with all kinds of benefits that pay for 100 percent of everything. They'd probably like a big house, 3 cars in the driveway and a pony too. Unlike Bingaman, however, these consumers -- or the employers that pay for their insurance -- realize trade-offs must be made. Dollars are limited, and every dollar spent on health insurance is a dollar not available to be spent on something else.

Bingaman appears to favor mandating the use of more extensive -- and expensive -- health care plans. For those who purchase their own insurance this means less money available for other items such as food, housing, and transportation. For employers this will raise the cost of hiring workers and contribute to yet more unemployment at a time of rising joblessness.

But I'm sure the New Mexico senator has a plan for that too.

As I wrote the other week:

Reading the headlines and watching the behavior of our elected officials I often wonder what kind of world they live in. There is seemingly no issue that can't be resolved or problem eliminated without the passage of a piece of legislation. There is absolutely no appreciation for underlying causes or factors that explain why such problems exist in the first place, and a firm belief that their eradication simply requires the vote of our representatives.

Our politicians want to solve our problems with little understanding of how the world works and vast amounts of misplaced confidence in the power of government. Run for cover.