David Brooks on health care reform:
Second, and perhaps more egregiously, Brooks offers up a false choice. We don't have to choose between compassion and vitality, decency or strength. There is no inherent conflict.
If we desire a country that is both strong and looks after its least fortunate, we need only take the path of the free market. By embracing tried and true virtues such as free enterprise and competition, we can ensure that the land of plenty continues to produce an abundance in the years to come, the fruits of which can be enjoyed by all people.
Indeed, as we sit down tomorrow for our Thanksgiving festivities the vast majority of us will not enjoy turkey, mashed potatoes, gravy, stuffing, cranberry sauce, wine, apple pie and any other number of foodstuffs -- the type of meal only a king would be able to enjoy not so long ago -- because of government programs but due to a system of free enterprise. Just as it provides so readily for our dinner tables, so too can it provide solutions for an ailing health care system.
The bottom line is that we face a brutal choice.There are at least two major flaws with what Brooks writes. The first is his contention that a society with more government redistribution is a more decent one. The failure of government housing, government provided "welfare" payments, government-run schools and the fiscal crises faced by Social Security and Medicare/aid all belie such claims.
Reform would make us a more decent society, but also a less vibrant one. It would ease the anxiety of millions at the cost of future growth. It would heal a wound in the social fabric while piling another expensive and untouchable promise on top of the many such promises we’ve already made. America would be a less youthful, ragged and unforgiving nation, and a more middle-aged, civilized and sedate one.
We all have to decide what we want at this moment in history, vitality or security. We can debate this or that provision, but where we come down will depend on that moral preference. Don’t get stupefied by technical details. This debate is about values.
Second, and perhaps more egregiously, Brooks offers up a false choice. We don't have to choose between compassion and vitality, decency or strength. There is no inherent conflict.
If we desire a country that is both strong and looks after its least fortunate, we need only take the path of the free market. By embracing tried and true virtues such as free enterprise and competition, we can ensure that the land of plenty continues to produce an abundance in the years to come, the fruits of which can be enjoyed by all people.
Indeed, as we sit down tomorrow for our Thanksgiving festivities the vast majority of us will not enjoy turkey, mashed potatoes, gravy, stuffing, cranberry sauce, wine, apple pie and any other number of foodstuffs -- the type of meal only a king would be able to enjoy not so long ago -- because of government programs but due to a system of free enterprise. Just as it provides so readily for our dinner tables, so too can it provide solutions for an ailing health care system.
No comments:
Post a Comment