Chait right to blast Brooks' shallow, healthcare insensitivity; but let's cut to the chase.

So, Jonathan Chait, writing in New York Magazine, reports as follows:

In a CNN interview, Representative Mo Brooks, an Alabama Republican, makes the case for Trumpcare in much starker terms: It will free healthy people from having to pay the cost of the sick. "It will allow insurance companies to require people who have higher health care costs to contribute more to the insurance pool that helps offset all these costs, thereby reducing the cost to those people who lead good lives, they're healthy, they've done the things to keep their bodies healthy," explained Brooks. "And right now, those are the people who have done things the right way that are seeing their costs skyrocketing." (Source: "Republican Blurts Out That Sick People Don't Deserve Affordable Care.")

Chait replies:

Of course, you can't pay your own way if you're too poor or sick to afford your own projected medical costs. Indeed, sometimes people who are healthy at the moment find one day they are not, or they have a sick child, or maybe they simply want to have a baby. (The cost of bearing children is another one Republicans want to be borne entirely by those doing it.) The Republican plan expresses one of the core beliefs shared by movement conservatives, and utterly alien to people across the globe, right and left: that people who can't afford the cost of their own medical care have nobody to blame but themselves.


Tom Usher

The argument on both sides always keeps the focus away from the easy solution. Is that on purpose? You decide.

Why not give them free healthcare? Libertarian-capitalists would ask where the money is going to come from. Create it out of thin air, as with all money. Libertarian-capitalists would complain that, that would be inflationary. What's price inflation? It's too much money chasing too few goods and/or services. Therefore, increase the goods and services to match the demand and the increase in earmarked money. We could do that? Yes we could, and it would hugely increase our GDP while making our citizenry vastly healthier, happier, richer (all of them), smarter, more knowledgeable, and on and on and on.

Libertarian-capitalists would say that, that's socialism. It doesn't have to be, but what kind of mind thinks liberty is other people's unnecessary misery?

  • Subscribe
  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Libertarian Capitalism, Monetary Reform, United States Notes. Bookmark the permalink.