On Health-Care Costs

            Reports of mail-bomb scares less than two weeks from mid-term elections drowned out discussions of other important factors in deciding which party to favor at the ballot box.  One of these is the exploding cost of health care and how to control it.  Socialists like Bernie Sanders continue to push for a single-payer system, even though there is ample evidence that such systems in countries like Canada and Great Britain have resulted in a drastic reduction in the quality of health care. Rather than resorting to socialized medicine, we should be looking at other ways to rein in costs. One of these, among many, is price competition.

            The other day my wife and I dined at a restaurant with moderately priced entrees on the menu. My wife ordered a shrimp dish for $18, but I chose a lamb piccata special listed on a board at the entrance to the restaurant. The lamb dish was good, but it certainly wasn’t worth the $34 I was hit with on the bill. There had been no price listed on the board, and it was my fault for not asking before ordering. Had I known the price I would not have ordered the dish; having been the victim of what I felt was price-gouging, I will never return to that restaurant.

            Can we make this an analogy to health care? How many people facing the cost of a knee replacement and several days in the hospital shop around for the facility with the lowest cost? Probably none, because hospitals don’t post prices. Many costs result from unnecessary tests and procedures, but how many patients question their need and how much they cost? Probably none, if they have insurance that will cover them.

            The point is that there is virtually no price competition among major health care providers like hospitals. I submit that if the prices of all their services were available to the public, the open market would come into play to drive prices down by forcing providers to be more innovative and efficient. Competition, an essential element of capitalism, works in the marketplace, be it in shoe stores, gas stations, and restaurants. Many factors could drive down the cost of health care; competition wouldn’t be a bad way to start.

Elizabeth Warren--Woman of Color

            On November 19, 1493, Christopher Columbus, on his second voyage to the New World, set foot on what is now Puerto Rico and claimed it for Spain. At the time of Columbus’s discovery, the inhabitants of Puerto Rico were Carib Indians, a warrior people rumored to roast and eat the flesh of their enemies. Undeterred by the reputation of the natives, Spain proceeded to colonize the island.

            Earlier this year, my wife, who was born in New York City of Puerto Rican immigrants, spit in a vial and sent it off to have her DNA analyzed. Sure enough, the report came back showing a preponderance of Iberian (Spanish and Portuguese) ancestry. But it also showed 13% Native American blood, which we can assume resulted from a mixed marriage some generations back between a European colonist and a native Carib.

            I asked my son David in jest if he thought he had enough Native American blood to build a casino. It certainly would be enough, apparently, for him to be admitted as a preferred minority to Harvard Law School, which boasted of having in Elizabeth Warren its first woman of color. And she had only .009% Native American blood. So much for Harvard’s commitment to diversity and its policy of discriminating against Asian applicants.

            Warren’s richly-deserved mockery points to the pitfalls of racial identity and to the bankruptcy of programs designed to benefit minorities solely on the basis of their race. DNA doesn’t define who we are as individuals or as Americans. We are a melting pot enriched by the various strengths and talents of the people who live and work in this land of opportunity. It doesn’t matter how or when our ancestors came here.  

              Senator Warren, for her part, has made her own important discovery: nothing damages a self-absorbed politician more than ridicule. As one wag put it, Elizabeth Warren, who profited from her claim of being, as Harvard put it, a woman of color, is in fact whiter than Ivory Soap.

Mobs, Civility, and Lawlessness

            Three words reverberate in our public discourse these days: mob, civility, and lawlessness.

            Commentators on the right accuse the left of inciting mob violence, while the left responds that there are no mobs, only protestors exercising their rights of free speech. Perhaps the screamers at the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing and from the Senate gallery during the voting thought they were doing just that, but those screamers lacked the one quality that could have commanded respect for their opinions: civility.

            Hillary (can’t she just go away?) chimed in last week that civility won’t be restored until the Democrats regain control of Congress. Was she suggesting that the right is uncivil, or was she threatening that Democrats would continue to incite mob lawlessness until the loons on the left outvote the deplorables on the right?

            It is true that President Trump rallies his frenzied base with his intemperate speeches and tweets. But his followers were not the ones harassing Republican senators outside their offices, in  elevators, or commuting to work; they were not the ones banging on the doors of the Supreme Court on Justice Kavanaugh’s first day on the bench; they were not the ones following Maxine Waters’ orders to confront Trump supporters in restaurants, gas stations, and supermarkets; they certainly were not the ones wearing masks while breaking windows and setting fires to prevent conservatives from speaking at universities.

            I don’t know if the “Kavanaugh effect” will be enough to prevent the Blue Wave from gaining control of the House or the Senate in the upcoming elections. But I don’t think Democrats have been helping their cause. George Melloan recently said it best: “It is not a good omen when leaders of a major party and its adherents in the press seem to justify lawlessness simply because they don’t like the president the country elected.” Amen.

Ford v. Kavanaugh

            Some final thoughts on Ford v. Kavanaugh.

            Democrats complained that the FBI investigation did not go far enough: it should have probed more deeply into the backgrounds of Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh, even after their intensive grilling by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Democrats should be happy the FBI didn’t, because a further check into Dr. Ford’s background would surely have raised questions about her veracity.

            Senator Grassley had in his possession a letter from an old boyfriend of Dr. Ford’s accusing her of fudging the truth. The letter contradicted her claims of claustrophobia and fear of flying, and, even more seriously, her denial of ever having coached anyone on how to take a polygraph. The boyfriend wrote that he had personally witnessed Dr. Ford coach Monica McLean, a friend of hers who was applying for a job with the FBI. Of course, McLean denies this. But imagine the furor on the left if this accusation had surfaced at the Judiciary hearing. Now, Judge Kavanaugh could be targeted by all sorts of lugubrious allegations—as a man he was fair game. But nobody could question Dr. Ford’s veracity—as a woman and a victim she had to be believed. Just ask Senator Hirono.

            Senator McConnell appears to be gleefully grateful to the Democrats for their public persecution of Judge Kavanaugh. He thinks that it has energized a furious Republican base that will rebuke the Democrats at the polls next month. That remains to be seen. What is certain is that this whole business has polarized the electorate as never before. And it has likely dispelled any pretense of comity in Washington’s legislative bodies. The Senate well has been poisoned.

            Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Joe Manchin of West Virginia will be excoriated by their respective parties for their treason. Republican Murkowski, an intellectually-challenged lightweight who was appointed to fill a vacant seat by her father, then governor of Alaska, will never get re-elected. Sarah Palin, who booted her father from the governor’s mansion, will see to it.  

            Democrat Manchin’s days as an influential member of the “loyal” opposition are numbered. His vote for Kavanaugh’s confirmation may get him re-elected in red state West Virginia, but he may just as well cross the aisle and join the Republicans. Democrats have no desk on their side for a man of such character.