Reinhardt articulates what I’ve been thinking of the U.S. debate over health care (emphasis mine):
The emerging political battle at this crossroads is unlikely to be styled in stark terms such as “rationing by income class” or “one-class” versus “two-class” medicine. Instead, it will be styled as a debate over “market competition versus government regulation”; as a simple, technocratic quest for greater “efficiency”; or as the dubious dichotomy of “rationing versus markets,” even though textbooks in economics instruct the reader that market prices are just another way of rationing scarce commodities, on the basis of ability and willingness to pay. At its core, then, the debate over health care, in the United States as elsewhere, is less a pure macroeconomic issue than an exercise in the political economy of sharing.
It reminds me of Jon Stewart’s interview with Ari Fleischer a couple of days ago. Throughout the campaign, McCain has argued for his tax plan because, as he says, “Why should anyone pay higher taxes?” More intrinsically, however, the disagreement between McCain and Obama is not over taxes but rather over redistribution. But the issue is rarely framed as such by Republicans, which is why Fleischer’s unapologetic argument against redistribution on the Daily Show was so, well, welcomed. I personally believe in more redistribution—or “sharing” as Reinhardt writes above—but let’s call it what it is and let the people decide.
The money quote from Stewart:
“For them to put up with trickle down economics, for eight years being told, “Hey man—don’t worry, stay there—it’s going to get wet soon”, and it never gets wet. What if somebody new comes in and goes, “Make it rain, biatch!” You know what I mean?”
Check out the interview starting at about 1:50: