President O.K. With Rationing

Rationing doesn’t bother the President. He and Michelle and the kids will be content to “stand in line”. This is the picture of national health care, a snapshot, a trailer for the real full-length movie.

WASHINGTON (AP) – President Barack Obama says the first family will follow the rules like every one else on the swine flu vaccine.

Obama says he’s probably “fairly far down” the pecking order for being vaccinated.

He tells CNN’s “State of the Union” that even though he’s president, “We will stand in line like everybody else. And when folks say it’s our turn, that’s when we’ll get it.”

Rationing Flu Shots

How Government Rationing Works

Lining up for work

Today’s Wall Street Journal article, Health Matters: Why Older Americans Will Have to Wait for Swine-Flu Shots, shines a little ray of light on the mechanism of rationing health services. Such rationing will become more prevalent should the Waxman or the Baucus plan be adopted for taking control of the nation’s health care system.

Central planning inexorably leads to rationing. While reading the following quotes, look for the words queue, federal health officials, and allotting. Look for actions to be based on government studies.

“Older Americans are normally at the front of the queue for shots against the seasonal flu viruses.”

“But so far the new H1NI flu is largely sparing the 60-plus demographic, instead hitting children and young adults the hardest. That’s because many people 60 and older were exposed to H1N1 viruses that circulated between 1918 and 1957.”

“A study by scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that about one-third of adults age 60 and older had anti-bodies that protected them. Children had none.”

“With the risk of infection lower for older adults, federal health officials are allotting the swine-flu vaccine first to pregnant women, children and young adults, and anyone under 65 with asthma, diabetes or another medical condition that can increase their risk of complications from the flu. The CDC  says older adults should be offered the vaccine only when there’s enough medicine for all the other priority groups.”

With limited resources, only 195 million doses, someone has to do the rationing. In this case, it’s the government. Markets and prices do the rationing of avocados, DVD players, and weekends at Club Med.

When the government gets more control of health care, it will do more of the rationing. It will be determined by boards and panels and officials, acting on studies. The officials will use statistics and do the allocation.

What about my friend who is 93 and hasn’t got the anti-bodies? He gets passed over. He is in the group of which one-third has anti-bodies. He is a low priority. Membership in this group, statistical branding, consigns him to a higher risk.

But someone has to make the hard calls, right? We are being told: Trust the CDC, trust the panels. Someone has to pull the plug. Someone has to deny coverage for things that we, as a nation, cannot afford. That’s the unpleasant reality of allocation, a.k.a. rationing. This is why older people are fearful of Democratic health plans.

This is the long way of putting what Sarah Palin so succinctly put when she coined the phrase about termination panels.

Swine-flu decisions give us a preview of allocations under HR 3200, the Baucus bill, or the Obama plan, (whatever that is).

We see today how rationing works.

Making Men Moral: Book Review

Making Men Moral

By Robert P. George

Read August 2009

I borrowed it from MSU’s library. I’m going to buy a copy for my shelves, one that I can re-read and annotate. Perhaps I’ll go to the extent of writing notes on separate sheets, instead of in the margins. I would organize them under several headings such as; terms, his central thesis, questions, examples, his main objections to others.

I tried this book before. I did not comprehend it. This time I did, mostly. My abilities and background might be increasing.

It is written as philosophy. It is loyal to accuracy, short on color. Each statement is carefully crafted. Besides my sporadic readings of Mill, Bentham, Locke, Nozick, I am not familiar with the style. I was surprised to appreciate it.

What helped the most was that the arguments have been on my mind for a long time. How can a devotion to individual liberty mesh with an allowance for morals legislation? George shows how. “Is there a moral right to do moral wrong?” George denies it.

People should choose valuable ends and pursuits. If not, they restrict the valuable ends they are to achieve, they become less than they ought. Others are made worse off, too. This is the Aristotelian-Thomist, natural law perspective. I must read George’s In Defense of the Natural Law. I should read John Finnis’ book as well. This book cited it many times.

Specific vices were singled out as permissible to legislate against; pornography, sodomy, prostitution, drug abuse. As a civil libertarian, I always thought, “Hey, if people want to fry their brain on drugs, corrupt their souls with prostitution, get addicted to pornography, or jump off high buildings, tell them to have a good time as long as they don’t compel others to pay for their habits or rehabilitation.” I bought the doctrine of “victimless crimes.”

In the section of free speech, he tells that even communists have a right to speech, if their threats of coercion are not imminent, but neo-Stalinists should not be protected. I’ll have to revisit that. I had asked myself if the Constitution allows for speech that advocates the repeal of the Constitution, or its basic principles of property, life and such. Stalinism surely did. So did Maoism. Is it protected? Not if the end is to enslave, starve and slaughter people and take 100% of their property. How imminent must the end be before the state can restrict such speech?

I would say that Richard A. Epstein uses the harm principle, probably from Mill, as a foundation, that he is a utilitarian. George opposes all the elements of utilitarianism. I surmise that the harm principle is the root of consequentialism. (I disdain such long words but they seem to be needful in philosophy.)

George takes on Rawls and nearly every other luminary of philosophy.

Kant thinks people do not have a right to do wrong.

Often there are prudential reasons not to legislate. It could be too expensive, counterproductive as when it tempts one to try the forbidden, or tear police away from more important prosecutions.

Reason as a basis for human choosing.

The fulfillment of desires is not sufficient ground for law.

Emotions are sub-rational, less valid than rational reasons.

I enjoyed the blood-less parsimony of language. I will also read his works written for a less scholarly audience, where the color, examples, humor and everyday language will be used.

One example: I hired a convicted felon. His crime was using marijuana, perhaps distributing and under-age alcohol se. The penalties were fairly stiff, I thought. As a condition of probation, he had to stay in Montana, though he wished to continue school in Oregon. He had to refrain from using those substances. At 20 he was alcoholic. He was not achieving a valuable human good but rather being hampered in such. Probation was good for him. The arrest and the law that put him into probation were thus good. This scenario caused me to rethink my distaste for morals legislation.

Liberals want to legislate against tobacco use and fast food because tobacco use leads to addiction and social health costs and because obesity harms the obese person and adds to the same costs. These are types of morals legislation. Liberals resist morals legislation in sodomy, teen promiscuity, drug abuse, alcohol consumption. Some liberals support prostitute unions and workers rights and health protection for them. There is a morass of mistakes with respect to human goods.


Great Cases in Constitutional Law: Book Review

Great Cases in Constitutional Law

Edited by Robert P. George

Book Review

Read: September 2009

This book was most worthwhile. It covers Marbury, Dred Scott, Brown, Lochner and Roe. I’d read so much about these in other essays, but those essays never delved into them much. It was assumed that the reader had an understanding. In this book two writers dealt with each case, one responding to the other. I enjoyed the argumentations and writing immensely even when I perceived that the authors were not of my ilk. They tried to make their writing accessible. The topics were challenging, but the style had verve.

The authors are some of the big names: Tushnet, Waldron, Sunstein, Arkes, Elshtain, George Will, and, of course, the introduction by Robert P. George. Others, I had not heard of.

Judicial review

Activists judges

Legislating from the bench

Original meaning


Courts vs legislative remedies

Humility, modesty in action by courts



George thinks Lochner deserves opprobrium. One of the others approves the decision, more or less. Epstein admires the Lochner era which restrained social welfare legislation.

I’d like to read this book again. Next time, it will be my own copy, not a library loaner. Then I can annotate. Books these articles referred to beckon. I’d like to make this an area of study for the rest of my life, and perhaps teach it to beginners, say at the junior college level.

The Invisible Heart: Book Review

The Invisible Heart

Book Review

By Russell Roberts

Read August 2009

This is subtitled “An Economic Romance.” In it, a high school economics teacher learns to like an attractive English teacher. He brings economic principles to her attention. They argue and learn from each other. Their romance consists of learning to appreciate each other and good natured arguing. There is nothing bawdy.

I think this book is a pretty palatable way for teens and adults to get introduced to many economic principles. The story line carries the action well enough. My niece and sister liked it and recommended it to their friends.

The econ teacher punctures many misunderstandings about supply and demand, how people get poor and rich, how international trade benefits all, how regulations can stifle, how government grows and harms prosperity.