Share This Page

Health care & the follies of central planning

| Sunday, July 14, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

“Under socialism, production is entirely directed by the orders of the central board of production management,” explained Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973), sociologist, philosopher and Austrian School economist.

Under central planning, intrinsically, the few do the planning while the many are required to become cogs in what Mises called an “industrial army,” a herd of individuals without authentic individuality who are well-trained to be yielding and unimaginative.

The problem, aside from the lack of freedom and power for the majority, is the limited knowledge — an inescapable shortcoming among the planners and societal designers.

As F.A. Hayek explained in his book, “The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism”: “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”

We saw how Hillary Clinton in 1993, with a severe case of fatal conceit, imagined how she could successfully redesign the entire American health-care system by holding a series of closed-door meetings with a small cadre of Ivy League academics, who had basically no medical knowledge, no business experience and no appreciation of the central role of individual incentives and personal sovereignty in a free and decentralized society.

The result was a top-down, command-and-control system, simultaneously coercive, punitive, complex, politically naïve and economically destructive, the core of which was a mandate for employers to provide health insurance for all their employees, regardless of their ability of pay.

Asked by a Virginia congressman what could be done to ease the burden of her health-care mandates on small businesses, Mrs. Clinton retorted in her best let-'em-eat-cake style: “I can't go out and save every undercapitalized entrepreneur in America.”

And Hillary Clinton's verdict on business owners who couldn't afford to give 100 percent health-care coverage to 100 percent of their employees? “Where I come from, freeloaders and free riders get no respect,” she proclaimed.

The message from central planning was loud and clear: Go out of business if you can't pay for our vision.

Now, two decades after Hillary Clinton's central-planning debacle, the ill-designed ObamaCare system is similarly running off the rails on its way to implementation.

On July 2, the Obama administration announced a postponement of the employer mandate, to 2015, a key funding source for ObamaCare.

That surprise policy change (an illegal action by the administration, since it violates the law passed by Congress) was followed by an announcement from the Department of Health and Human Services that it won't attempt to verify individual eligibility for ObamaCare subsidies.

In short, ObamaCare is now a plan that dries up its funding while simultaneously setting in motion a half-baked “honor system” scheme that's sure to increase the level of fraudulent handouts.

And still, the central planners plod along, displaying more faith than knowledge, unwilling to recognize what Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman so succinctly explained: “The greatest advances of civilization, whether in architecture or painting, in science and literature, in industry or agriculture, have never come from centralized government.”

Ralph R. Reiland is an associate professor of economics at Robert Morris University and a local restaurateur (rrreiland@aol.com).

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.