Confusion is King

In philosophy, Dualism is the concept where opposing forces battle each other for supremacy: yin vs. yang; liberal vs. conservative; state's rights vs. federal rights; good vs. evil. Hegal, my favorite philosopher, carried this concept a bit further with his political/philosophical idea of dialectics; the central concept is the thesis which is balanced by the opposing view, the antithesis. These opposing views are resolved by the synthesis whereby the two opposing views reach a settlement and move on to the next level.

The upcoming presidential election is about the economy; as Bill Clinton famously remarked on his way to the White House: "It's the economy, stupid." For at least 75 years, the dualism of the two major political parties has orbited the political-economic philosophies of two major competing economists: John Maynard Keynes and Friedrich von Hayek. Keynes, the brilliant Englishman, is the grandfather of Keynesian Economics and the first economist to describe macroeconomics (the overall picture vs. microeconomics, the building blocks of any economy). Keynesianism proposes some degree of government central planning, a large degree of government intervention during recessions (as a bridge to returning prosperity), and strong manipulations of both monetary (interest rates and money supply) and fiscal (government spending and taxation) policies to guide the economy to ever more sustainable levels of progress. Hegal would call this the thesis.

The antithesis of this school of thought is the political-economic philosophy of Hayek, the best known member of the Austrian School of Economics. In his most famous work--The Road to Serfdom-- Hayek condemns central planning, big government, deficit spending, excessive regulation and the nanny state.

It would be a simplification to state that the Republicans embrace Hayek, while the democrats embrace Keynes as their respective mentors. If it were that simple, the thesis and the antithesis would reach Hegelian synthesis (dialectics); some compromise of the two schools would prevail and the country could move onto a higher plain of function until the next crisis appears. Why is this not possible (and certainly not happening)?

It is not happening because although one party or the other may talk the talk, they are most definitely not walking the walk. Ronald Reagean, who one would on first glance identify with Hayek, raised the deficit to record levels and although best remembered for his tax cuts, also raised taxes significantly at the end of his second term. George H. W. Bush, who famously said: "Read my lips, no new taxes", went on to raise the deficits even further and reversed course to increase taxes as well. Bill Clinton, who was pegged as a tax and spend Democrat surprised many when he cut entitlements, balanced the budget and reduced regulation. George W. Bush, who ran, like Reagan, on reducing the role of Government in our lives, played a major role in one of the biggest increases in entitlements in modern history--Medicare Part D--and increased the deficits to record levels each of his 8 years in office. He also turned positively Keynesian when he helped shepherd an $800 billion dollar stimulus package into law during the recent economic meltdown. He claimed to have Hayek as one of his favorite mentors, but turned positively Keynesian when things got crunchy. Obama so far has been truly Keynesian since he took office but it is early to see how he will finish up.

Voters are confused. The candidates claim to identify with one school or the other as their respective parties do....but then they do just the opposite. Reagan and both Bushes were hardly fiscally responsible. Clinton was hardly Keynesian.

What is really going on here is that the political establishment has become increasingly a textbook example of crony capitalism. Each party has its respective special interests to pay back for helping to get them elected. As they say in Texas..."You dance with the them that brung ya". As a voter, you can no longer vote for a republican because you want fiscal responsibility, lower taxes and less regulation. As a democrat, you can no longer vote for your candidate because you want secure entitlements, more regulation of Wall Street and a wider social net. As a voter, you need to look at what special interests are pulling the strings on the candidates and by extension, what agendas those special interest are trying to promote.

The political identities of Keynes and Hayek (thesis and antithesis) will not be reaching any synthesis in the near future. This is why we have political gridlock and why such a large proportion of the electorate is dispirited and depressed. This morass will continue until we discover a way to reduce the influence of special interests on our present day political sphere. As my father used to say: "We have the best Congress money can buy."

Contradictions

Obamacare appears to be heading to the Supreme Court for a showdown. Multiple federal judges in multiple districts have either ruled that parts of the legislation are unconstitutional or have ruled that they are constitutional. Many are calling for an expedited course--skipping the Appeals Court level--and going straight to the Supremes. Their arguments are persuasive.

The short version is the question: does the Congress have the right, under the commerce clause of the constitution, to force citizens to buy health insurance. This is called the individual mandate. The secondary question is: if the individual mandate is unconstitutional, is the whole bill unconstitutional?

I am no legal scholar and will make no predictions about how this will turn out...however, I recall the philosopher, social scientist, political scientist and trouble maker Hegal, who famously suggested that the argument that has the fewest internal contradictions should prevail. Following that logic, I would like to know that if the Supreme Court finds that Congress cannot compel citizens to buy health insurance, can hospitals and physicians and other providers begin to refuse to treat people who have no insurance and who refuse (or are unable) to pay? Decades ago, it became illegal for any health care facility to refuse treatment based on his or her ability to pay. Then the infamous HIPPA legislation made it illegal to even ASK patients in the emergency room if they had insurance before they underwent at least an initial medical evaluation. Health Care facilities have been giving out free care quietly and graciously for a long time. Now that Medicaid and Medicare and, increasingly, private insurance continue to reduce payments to providers, free care is becoming problematic.

So, if people refuse to buy insurance, would it not be consistent to say that providers should be able to refuse them free service? OK...I know what you are going to say. Car insurance covers people to drive and driving a car is a privilege not a right. No insurance, no license. Living is not a privilege, it is a right--one does not require a state license to keep breathing. There is also that pesky little document that says something like "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness....".
Life is a right and the state would never take that right away. But wait....it does. The death penalty is still legal. So, the State does on occasion take a life away--so should one conclude that living is a privilege and not a right?

The reimbursement problem in healthcare is a huge problem which significantly adds to the cost of healthcare for all. If the Supreme Court is going to weigh in on this, perhaps they should write an opinion which clarifies in which direction this should head. I am certain that they have all read Hegal and are familiar with his argument. The real question becomes if they or any other of our leaders have the political will to gravitate toward a reasonable, consistent, non-contradictory policy. I am not holding my breath.