What always jumps out at me from these discussions is that people advocating for leftist type economic policies never put any thought into the knock on effects of enforcing those policies and the further state control that is inevitably going to have to be expanded continuously in order to close off loop-holes.
Yes. It happens on both sides, I suppose, but I have pointed out consistently that the lefties simply don’t peel the onion enough to figure out if what they are supporting is either workable, or able to be implemented in a way that does not compromise personal freedom or free markets.
Our Medicare system is a perfect example. Obviously, when it was passed in the late 60’s, all the lefties were for it and all the cons were against it, saying it wouldn’t work. Who was right?
Well……….it worked, if you were satisfied with simply covering the elderly population (a worthwhile goal!) and you didn’t care about the uninteded consequences.
What Medicare did, due to its STRUCTURE (which contains no incentives for cost control) is, within a few years after its passage, health care services inflation into an entirely different orbit. This was unsurprising; after all, you were removing about 50% of the total national health care BILLINGS (old folks use more health care than the young, obviously) and removing them from free market price controls.
The result is forty years of health care hyperinflation, which has only paused a couple of times due to recession. This is why I get rather strident when somebody starts talking about “Medicare for All”; because they either don’t know, or don’t care, that they want to expand a system which is ALREADY doomed to rack up staggering amounts of red ink starting in about 2024, and double down on the problem.
I’m all for some kind of system which provides care either universally or for those who need it; but I’d prefer not to jump off a cliff in the process.
Yay for socialism!
Yes. Examples of what happens when you ignore unintended consequences abound.
I was told that the UBI system does not include that, but that is like saying that imperialism doesn’t include war.
Yes, I read that exchange, and had my own with the same person. The UBI fetishists are all cut from the same cloth; some of them do copious mathematics to show that “it CAN be done”, but none of them want to deal with the reality that an economy, it’s tax system, it’s welfare system, etc., is an integrated whole. You cannot change X massively without SOME sort of corresponding adjustment (Y) happening somewhere else. And when you try to address those unintended consequences with legislation (the “fix”), THAT is when socialism starts to be implemented.