On S'engage; Et Puis, On Voit

That was a favorite saying of Napoleon’s. Later, Lenin adopted it as his own. Rendered in English it reads, “You commit yourself; and then, you see. It is a romantic notion, fitting for men of action. And it is revealing of each man’s monomania that it never gave them pause that they were committing everyone else.

Now the United States is on the verge of committing itself to nationalized health care, the results of which, should we go through with it . . . we will see. The debate on the business is just getting started, though tragicomically, the enabling legislation is well-advanced. The bumper sticker opposition to the idea writ large is that health care will be rationed. No one even casually acquainted with economics, and so with the notion that economics is the study of alternative uses of scarce resources, would find that news. Steven Singer could not abide the rationing chorus, and so wrote this pointing out that rationing is currently and of course afoot. Whatever his Logan’s Run enthusiasms (I have long thought that Singer’s best eventual exit will be to feed himself to hungry but otherwise healthy and sound young people), Singer is a serious intellectual force. He does a service to the extent he buries the ‘no because health care will be rationed’ opposition to government controlled heath care. The issue, of course, is who, or what, will do the rationing going forward.

Singer almost apologizes for the imperfections of his solution (grey souls in grey suits counting life years and handing out money to the potentially longer lived, all else being equal), but justifies it as the best we can do. He cites Churchill’s defense of democracy as ‘the worst possible form of government except for all the others’ as an analogous rallying cry for his proposal. Singer thinks Americans will accept such centralized rationing provided they can opt for supplementary private insurance and that the cost of care rationed the current way (e.g. by what you can afford) is brought home to us all. This ability to buy supplementary insurance is a big deal. An even bigger deal is the ability to simply pay through the nose for something if it comes to that. As Thomas Sowell has pointed out, the integrity of a government controlled system may depend on making some services and goods unavailable, regardless of an individual’s ability to pay. And don’t think such restrictions can’t be imposed. Again, as Sowell has pointed out, the FDA, although for other reasons, currently prevents us, even those of us with a very different risk profile owing to advanced disease, from buying drugs deemed safe enough for Europeans. As for Americans understanding the true cost of their health care, it seems the higher unemployment rate, coupled with our nation’s informal system of employer provided health care, has brought that cost home to many Americans who until recently were blissfully unaware.

There are two principal concerns I have with government run health care, exclusive of cost (the CBO covered that). First, Singer mentions the high costs of prescription drugs in this country as a source of rationing. He points to the reasonable costs of these drugs in other countries with nationalized systems, which will only pay a certain price for the drugs. The idea is that a nationalized system will bargain for lower-priced drugs, producing savings. But it seems clear that the cost of the development of the drugs will not go down by the act of a nationalized system demanding sale at a certain price. Rather, it seems currently that the American market is paying the loin’s share of the tab, which renders tolerable the risk that the R&D investment into new drugs will be profitable. If the United States institutes universal price controls on drugs (in addition to what goes on in the current government-run health care programs) we may well see R&D by major pharmaceutical companies go down. And we are likely to see more incremental progress via copy-cat drugs that simply tweak side effects, and less true innovation. Note that we see this even now because any industry will seek to minimize its risk and maximize its profit (see, e.g., the practice in both the publishing and motion picture industries to stay with winners, be it Doctor Phil’s fortieth book or Spiderman 20). Government-imposed (read lower) profit margins would surely make the pharmaceutical industry more risk adverse and less innovative.

Second, I am not confident that official rationing, once started, can be acceptably cabined. Singer goes into some detail in his essay about counting life years as the key to his rationing regime. That’s the practice of judging that this teenager should get the instant procedure or drug and that this senior citizen should not. The rationale is that the teenager will continue to live for many decades, whereas the senior…well, the end is nigh. But in practice, it seems unlikely that the teenager would be much featured in the analysis conducted by the grey suits. In practice it seems that what would be before the grey suit would be the senior and his need. And the grey suit would say no; not no as between the senior and a similarly situated teenager, but just plain no. That is to say, because young people are not often in need of expensive medical care, and in any case because identical needs by opposing class members will seldom be coincident in time, the rationing conducted would be in the form of a denial of a single need, not as between a need and a greater need. Or, put another way, the greater need referenced would be that hoary need that has been the benevolent altar baptized by so much human misery down the years. And it is insatiable.

Regarding the way forward, I find myself in agreement with Charles Krauthammer. He advocates radical tort reform and a stark move away from the employer-provided health insurance paradigm. But however you come down on the health care issue, it seems folks of good faith (i.e. not those ideologues who view government run health care as a tool for realigning the American people into dependency on the government, and so are for it regardless of content; nor again those who seem to be using the extant debate as an excuse to riot) can agree at least to this: that the legislators actually read and understand whatever final thing they end up voting on. They will be, after all, one way or the other, committing all of us. They should be charged with a better explanation than “we’ll see” when asked what they have done.