The law of intended consequences?
John Hinderaker quotes Senator Clinton on ABC and extends the analogy to Social Security. The idea is that, just as a young person would have to be crazy to voluntarily enter the social security system today, because the numbers show that it all costs, no benefits to him, precisely the same sort of economics can be extrapolated in so-called universal health care:
Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to garnish the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans…when pressed on ABC’s “This Week,” she said: “I think there are a number of mechanisms” that are possible, including “going after people’s wages, automatic enrollment.” Clinton said such measures would apply only to workers who can afford health coverage but refuse to buy it…
There is an analogy between the compulsory aspects of the candidates’ health care proposals and Social Security. A young man or woman would be crazy to participate in the Social Security system if he or she had any choice. If anyone saved 12.4% of his earnings over a lifetime, he would not only have far more money in retirement than Social Security can provide, it would, equally important, be his money, to invest and dispose of as he sees fit. But the government needs young people’s money to support their grandparents’ retirements, so Social Security is forced upon them.
Given the internet and the nature of modern information flow, there is less excuse than ever in the world for the Law of Unintended Consequences, particularly when the negative results are first order consequences of the initial act. But perhaps such is the nature of human folly and hope that there will be a willing suspension of disbelief in any scheme that appears to promise something for (almost) nothing in the short term.
February 4th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Young people who work, or young people who don’t get disabled. For deadbeats and the disabled it’s a bargain.