Does That Make Gordon Gecko Linux or Windows?
Posted by Kevin

Music City Bloggers has a post up highlighting a comment thread discussing Sicko and markets in health care. One of the commentators, Hammock, says this:

I’m glad that there is greater public discussion of the flaws in the U.S. health care system. What bothers me is that Moore and everyone else seems not to carry the argument beyond “we should get better care” and “health insurance companies are greedy”. Greed produced my clothes, my house, and the computer I’m using right now.

Even if it were an unregulated market, there are options other than single-payer or nationalization. There are policies that can guarantee care while encouraging competition to control costs and promote innovation. No one seems to be willing to discuss them, possibly because these ideas are complicated.

Just to make the argument clear: Greed is not a sufficient condition for an undesirable outcome. Greed is not even incompatible with desirable outcomes. In the right institutional arrangement, greed is a necessary condition for desirable results. So why denounce greed, rather than the institutional environment?

I will indeed state that making categorical statements like “Greed is always bad” are overly simplistic (libertarians run into the same problem when they invoke simple principles such as “non-initiation of force”). It is almost always possible to construct an example in which any hard-and-fast, black-and-white moral rule does not hold.

…Economics might be able to tell us something about the true nature of the problem–why does this market work poorly, whereas others work well? But that would require a careful and thoughtful discussion that would probably bore most people, so no one–not CNN, not Michael Moore–has the discussion. Instead we get grandstanding and entertainment.”

This reminds me of the Windows vs. Linux flame wars or the various “my favorite programming language is obviously superior to your favorite programming language” that infest the internet. I am a programmer and have been a sys admin and network security engineer. I have worked on, literally, almost every single operating system and programmed in most programming languages. I have networked computers in Appletalk and written code to run on Os/2. I have written programs in C for Unix and Perl for Windows. I have written fat clients, smart clients, and web based clients. I have done applets and ajax and, God help me, active x. I have written Windows services and Unix daemons. Yesterday I wrote code in three different languages on two different operating systems. And you know what? I wouldn’t hesitate to use any technology I have used in my career again (Well, okay — maybe not VB). Whatever the Linux fanboys and Windows geeks may say, whatever the Perl partisans and Python propagandists might claim, programming languages and operating systems and design methodologies are just tools. Nothing more, nothing less. The trick is to use the right tool for the right task.

Greed, or, more accurately, markets, are the same way. They are a tool, not a revelation from the burning bush. Greed is not the only tool in our possession and it must be judged the same way all other tools are: by how well it does it job. You cannot look at a situation and think to yourself “how can I make markets work better here”. That is like looking at a nail and thinking, “hmm, how could I get that nail into this piece of wood using this hacksaw”. The appropriate question is whether or not greed is the right tool for the job. And I think it is pretty clear that if the job is designing a decent health care system in thsi country, the answer is “no”.

Markets create incentives for insurance companies to behave atrociously. The simplest way for an insurance company to become profitable is to never pay out any claims. Thus, insurance companies go to great lengths to not enroll people who can be expected to have high medical costs down the line and to find reasons to deny people the benefits for which they have paid their premiums. Assuming that doctors are driven by the same greed first considerations (most aren’t; but that is a complication for another day) they too have incentives to act in something other than the patient’s best interest. If they are paid by the insurance company per patient, they have every incentive to stack the patients high and push them through fast. If they are paid by the insurance company per procedure, then they have every incentive to order up as mush work as possible. The former leads to missed diagnosis and incomplete treatment; the latter leads to over exposure to antibiotics, unnecessary pain anddiscomfort for the patient, and longer waiting times for needed treatments and equipment for everyone else. Greed, in other words, is bad for your health.

This is obvious once you step back and look at the problem without the need to make it fit into a market based solution. But you must take that first step of not picking your tool before you diagnose the problem. Markets and greed are not required in every aspect of our lives. They are not revealed wisdom or the secret to everlasting success and happiness. They are just tools, the functional equivalent of a hammer. And not every problem in the world is shaped like a nail.

July 12th, 2007 | General, Politics, Economics, Culture, Health | 22 comments

GOP Losing War on Al Qaida
Posted by Kevin

Bush is losing the war on terrorism:

U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded al-Qaida has rebuilt its operating capability to a level not seen since just before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, The Associated Press has learned.

The conclusion suggests that the group that launched the most devastating terror attack on the United States has been able to rebuild despite nearly six years of bombings, war and other tactics aimed at crippling it.

Still, numerous government officials say they know of no specific, credible threat of a new attack.

Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, it is a distraction. Despite the full focus of the United States, al Qaida has rebuilt itself. It is now as strong as it was in 2001. Why? Iraq. The war in Iraq took troops away form Afghanistan. That allowed al Qaida and Taliban members to escape capture and provided the breathing room they needed to begin to plan and rebuild. The invasion of Iraq has tied down American intelligence assets and special forces units, in addition to regular military units, that should be being used to hunt down al Qaida members. Iraq has provided a generation’s worth of recruiting posters for al Qaida. It is now easy for them to point to Fallujah and Abu Gahrab and the horror that is today’s Baghdad and say that is how Americans treat Muslims who had done them no harm. Iraq has provided invaluable training for terrorists in both US military tactics and urban terrorism. Iraq is the reaosn we are losing the war on terrorism.

The war in Iraq is lost. It was lost the day Bush decided to invade. They shattered the government of a country that had only been kept together by blood and violence, and they did it with a force far too small for the task, no plan for dealing with the day after the government fell, and nothing but derisive taunts for the professionals who tried to tell them just how hard a task they had undertaken. The country is in the middle of a civil wart that started because of the stupidity of the GOP and the fecklessness of its leadership. No amount of surging or wishful thinking or will can change that. The only question remains is how much worse will the GOP let this get. Will they stop the madness in Iraq before al Qaida grows so strong that we cannot suppress them in our, or perhaps even in our children’s, lifetimes?

The GOP has lost the war in Iraq. Will they let their fear of admitting to their mistakes lose the war on Al Qaida too?

July 12th, 2007 | General, Terrorism | 16 comments