From the dumbest column I’ve ever read in Slate (which I normally read before anything else):

Suppose the national defense of the United States were relegated to the private sector. Instead of the publicly funded Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines, the country would be defended by private militias funded mainly by insurance companies. In the event of foreign attack on U.S. soil, the militias would defend those citizens in the affected areas who’d paid defense insurance premiums through their places of work (or, if self-employed, as individuals).

The best-armed troops would defend the wealthiest and most hawkish segments of the population, who would have paid the highest premiums.

The premise of the article is that we should nationalize health care because it’s like the military, and look how good a nationalized military is. Wow, lets go through all the ways this is flawed.

1. National Defense is a public good, health care is not. You may think that health care is a right, or something everyone is entitled to, and those are philosophical positions, but health care doesn’t fit the definition of a public good in the economic sense. First of all, it isn’t non-rival, which means that if I consume some health care, you can’t consume that same amount. If I take a pill, or use a X-Ray machine, you can’t take that same pill or use the machine at the same time. In contrast, an army that protects the United States offers the same amount of protection, whether or not you add more people to it. Second, health care is excludable. I can stop you from taking a pill or getting that X-Ray if you don’t pay for it. But with national defense, if you don’t pay your taxes, the army still protects you. There are fundamental characteristics between them that make them different.
2. In general, everyone in the country shares the same risk if the country is attacked. Granted, people in high-risk areas may suffer a greater risk due to terrorism, and that is actually reflected most of the time in higher local tax rates to support police counter-terrorism, or insurance premiums for potential targets. In general, though, if there is a large scale attack against the United States or its allies, the risk to all of us is the same. When it comes to health care, we all have different amounts of risk, and only minimal information about that risk. Well planned insurance lets us pool this risk to reduce the cost to individuals and overcome some of this information problem. Nationalized health care has nothing to do with risk pooling, and it effectively involves the health and low-risk subsidizing the unhealthy and high-risk.
3. National defense is a pretty bad example. There’s definitely consensus on the left, and I think among some people on the right that we spend way too much on national defense. It costs the Defense Department orders of magnitude more to procure technology that is available cheaply in the private sector. Defense technology research involves massive outlays relative to the returns. The military is a sprawling and inefficient bureaucracy with a sprawling and inefficient supplier network supporting it. Do we really want to take our relatively dynamic biomedical research sector and make it part of a government supplier complex? Is this really a way to reduce costs?

I later found that Arnold Kling took a briefer, though probably more economically informed shot at the column as well.

Categories: America, Business and Economics, Distribution, Governance, Incentive Centered Design, Information Economics, Politics