Great article from Danny Henninger today. He opens with Senator Kennedy's opposition to free market reforms in the Medicare bill and wonders if the Democrats are not too opposed to all competition:
It is the voice of the modern Democratic Party, which when you stand back and take a long look, appears not to want to compete at much of anything these days, other than winning the presidency. But even here the people running for the Democratic presidential nomination seem mostly intent on signing up the whole country to a non-compete clause. Medicare, the public schools, trade, affirmative action, the environment, even the federal judiciary--persons of competitive or entrepreneurial instincts need not apply. How did this happen, especially now? For most people in the United States, the idea of not competing is alien to their being. Sports stadiums in America fill up every night of the week with people high on the thrill of competition. Parents stand on the sidelines all weekend as their children learn to compete on the playing fields of Peoria.He even ties it back to the confirmation of judges. I would love to hear a rebuttal of this from a Democrat. I fear it is a valid indictment of the current party's policies. Posted by jk at December 5, 2003 01:40 PM
OK, I'll give it my best shot.
On Medicare,Mr. Henninger does not mention the little Republican written clause concerning price bargaining whereby Medicare, soon to be the single largest purchaser of drugs, is basically forbidden to negotiate for the best price, but must pay market rates. Explain to me also how our large pharmaceutical companies can manage to sell their drugs into Canada'a price controlled market but must charge a 30% premium in this country? Suddenly the free marketeers claim foul if customers try to purchase the Canadian versions, even going to the extreme of calling those drugs potentially unsafe.
As to the competition for providing drug insurance to Medicare customers, how level will the playing field be? Medicare must cover all those eligible regardless of health. Will the private companies play by the same rules, in for a dollar in for the whole pot? Are we ready to set up health insurace like car insurance where you pay a premium for being in bad health? Seems like the logical conclusion to this competition. The private companies will be free to come in and offer lower rates for those customers who can pass certain physical tests. Good for them, bad for those who fail who will be forced back into the government program which will either need to raise funds, raise fees, or limit coverage. In a truly free market those with good health should get a financial break and those with poor health should pay more, they will use more medical dollars after all. I have yet however, to hear anyone on the Republican side come out and state this.
On education I have little argument for Mr. Henninger except that privatization experiments in several major cities have not been huge successes. Competition was removed from public schools by the legal requirment to attend. Simply put, you cannot flunk out. Note that at the university level public and private institutions compete quite nicely.
As for those judicial candidates it strikes me as quite interesting that Mr. Henninger, backing the party which would like to abolish affirmative action and all references to race describes the nominees first by race, and second by name. Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen are not nominees, but Hispanic and Black female nominees.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at December 11, 2003 11:07 AM