Think It Out, II

Another alternative to restricting all healthcare deductibles would be to have a safety net specific to people who find that their deductibles end up being too high.  One can readily imagine how some people would misuse that.  But then again, some people would genuinely need to be helped through it.

I'm reminded of the scene in My Fair Lady where Shaw (a socialist, FWIW), makes Eliza's father Alfred Doolittle categorize himself, truthfully and with some self-awareness, as one of the undeserving poor.  He is, in fact, not particularly worthy of a government handout, but some of the men his his position are, and there's no way for the government to tell which are which.

The liberal response is generally to vote for the government to be liberal, in the sense of generous, towards all the Doolittles, deserving and otherwise--which frequently leads to the government being illiberal to all, lest the Alfreds of the world in their liberty abuse its liberality.  The conservative response is to vote to be generous to none of them.

And the conservative response is, I think, the better, so long as there actually are other ways of helping those who can't actually help their doing little.

This is where prudence comes into government, and charity into life.  Those in government (and to a fair extent, those voting for them based on their platforms) have to discern prudently which sorts of welfare are in fact best administered at the particular level of government at which they serve.  And those who are not in government have to discern charitably how best to help those who are not being helped by government.

Indeed, those who tend to vote against government welfare have, for that reason, a particular burden on them to be charitable with their time, treasure, and talent.  In America, conservatives supposedly give more to charity than liberals (here, for any liberal readers, is an NYT piece on the topic: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/your-money/republicans-democrats-charity-philanthropy.html).  Worldwide, Americans are supposedly more charitable than many other nationalities (https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-us-is-the-most-generous-country-but-americans-say-debt-is-keeping-them-from-giving-more-to-charity-2019-10-18).  This doesn't mean that Americans or conservatives should pat themselves on the back: it simply is an indication of the fact that they are actually doing their duty, to some extent, by attempting to provide personally for those whom they have voted against providing for governmentally.

And of course, one can still argue about which way is better: do things go better when people can decide where to put their money, or when there is a government bureaucracy of experts making those decisions?  (For those who don't know a conservative, be aware that all the folks right of center just sneezed as if they had an allergy at the phrase "government bureaucracy of experts.")  I think that the Alfred Doolittle argument is a strong reason for preferring the former, but there are plenty of other arguments out there ... which is why good, smart people vote both D and R: because there's a lot to be thought out.