LoserswhowantBigGovernmentsayWHAT?

Listening to NPR this morning, there was a brief retrospective on the life of Dr. Michael Debakey. They played a clip from an appearance on Science Friday back in 2003. Here's my fairly accurate transcription of the quote, but there was a little mumbling at parts.

"I take a very strong position on this [government funding for medical research]. For every citizen, what are the two most important priorities in the nation? First, security, second your health."

First, let me state that Dr. Debakey is a true American hero. The procedures he developed, the thousands of lives he saved, these are part of a lasting legacy worthy of praise. The world is better for his time on it.

Secondly, Did you see it? The (probably unintentional) chicanery? Let's tease out a logical statement from this quote:

1. -The two most pressing concerns for American citizens are security and personal health.
2. -The government is the best protector of security.
3. -Therefore, the government should be the protector of personal health.

Not so fast, dear sir!

Even if you give him the first two legs of his argument (and there are those who wouldn't), there is no way to logically tie in the third point, unless there's some Law of Transitive Competence I missed.

Allow me to illustrate by comparison. Let's adjust the quote around to say:

"I take a very strong position on this [government funding for funny late-night monologues]. For every citizen, what are the most and 27th-most important priorities in the nation? First, security, twenty-seventh a funny Conan O'Brien."

Yet this is as logical as Dr. Debakey's sentence. I mean, if the government is best-suited to handle our first and second priorities, it would most assuredly kick-ass at the 27th. Look, I'm sure he meant well, but that matters naught.

To doctors and medical professionals, who spend admirably long hours on the front line in the battle against Human Suffering and Death, the world is a place defined by life expectancy and disease rates. Furthermore, many doctors got into their profession because they really care for people, not for the salaries. That compassion is exactly what I want in my surgeon or physician, but not in my government. The near monomania required to be a successful doctor often distorts perspective in other realms of knowledge. This might be way off, but I think there's an Aristotle quote about the danger of great knowledge in a specific arena is that it gives the man a falsely-earned confidence in other arenas.

Why is Debakey wrong?

The government is best-suited for control of the military, simply because national security is a public good. Namely, there's no way for someone who lives in the United States to opt out of our defense. We can't have little pockets of objectors throughout the country where those who choose can fall outside the U.S. defense umbrella. Because of the nature of national security, taxation and government intrusion are an efficient use of capital.

Health, however, is a private good. My life quality is my own. If I die at 35 or 135, I can choose when to opt out and stop paying the costs (so to speak). To have the cost of my upkeep be projected onto someone else is terribly inefficient, as well as morally dubious.

I think we would have a much clearer view of public health policy if we were to simply change the debate from "health care" to "automotive care." We'd remove about 95% of the moralizing, the aspersions, and the sancitmony, and retain 100% of the sensibility.

Okay, I'm done now.

*Steps down from soapbox/infant high-chair*