This (from Paul Krugman) strikes me as a fairly reasonable argument:
>The truth is that there’s no difference in principle between saying that every American child is entitled to an education and saying that every American child is entitled to adequate health care. It’s just a matter of historical accident that we think of access to free K-12 education as a basic right, but consider having the government pay children’s medical bills “welfare,“ with all the negative connotations that go with that term.
Objections?
I don’t really have any objections, but I do have a worry. It does seem quite plausible that if we consider education to be a basic right for children (thus the government should fund it) then we really have no good reason for not also considering health care a basic right. It would seem only logical that a child can only receive a good education if that child is healthy.
But, what if someone denies that education is a basic right and just considers it another form of welfare. There are some people I know who believe just that. Public education was not conceived of until the beginning of the 19th century in Germany (see Fichte’s speech to the German people), and not seriously considered in America until the 1830’s (see writings of Horace Mann). A few states did not mandate public education until the early 20th century. This argument would do nothing to convince these dissenters.
Now, I do believe that this is a good argument for those who have good reason to believe education is a basic right. But, my worry is that there must be some independent argument that shows why education is a basic right and why health care is a basic right. My moral intuitions lead me to believe that on the priority scale health care would seem to come first. If I have a good reason to believe that education is a basic right then I should then also have a good reason to believe health care is a basic right. However, if it is just an historical accident that we believe that education is a basic right (implying we really don’t have a good reason to believe it is), then it would seem to be no more than an historical accident that we don’t generally believe health care is a basic right.
Krugman is probably just attempting to point out people’s inconsistency on what they consider rights. But, if people really don’t have good reasons (or at least couldn’t tell them to you) for why they believe something, then pointing out an inconsistency is not going to be that powerful.
While I certainly agree with the sentiment, I’m not sure what “in principle” is supposed to mean here. Are education and health care equal rights? How do you measure this? Is liberty one such right? How about freedom of speech, religious expression? Freedom from bigotry (which may conflict with the previous rights)? Is it that there is a monetary value placed on education and health care? If that’s the case, what about housing? Is every American child entitled to an “adequate” (not sure what that means) house? Whatever the answers to these questions, the argument sounds nice.
(Love the spell check here in the comments BTW. Or is it my new computer doing it?)
I think Matt K is right to point out (a) that people may not think that education is a basic right, so they’ll remain unimpressed by Krugman’s claim; and (b) that this argument establishes anything other than the inconsistency between the two claims. But, granted the right to education, it would seem odd to deny a right to health care, as health care is the more basic right (without which you would get no education, perhaps). So this is a good example of an argument that might work within certain parameters (accepting schooling as a basic right) but not others.
I’m not sure see Krugman’s motive for writing this piece. Are there many out there making the case against the benefits of education and good health? So, he can establish the benefit of insurance. Does that some how make the case for government-administered care? Isn’t it also a right for people to be able to purchase food to suit their needs? Does that serve as a defense for agricultural subsides? No one wants to make the case against education as a good, but public edication in the US isn’t often cited by policy makers as evidence of a government that works. Why does making the case for education make one also for public education? Gross misrepresentation. Should that right to education also include college and professional training? I have no objections to his column, but perhaps next time, Krugman could take on a more contentious position.
The motive is fairly obvious. Many poor children don’t have health insurance and the Bush administration is attempting to make sure they continue not to have it.
“Bush administration is attempting to make sure they continue not to have it”
That is just patently false. The Bush administration does not support the current piece of legislation to continue supporting SCIMP, which is only one way to provide children with adequate health care. No one is against health care for children, but there exist differences as to how to go about it. President Bush’s staff has already indicated their support for some of the ideas coming out of the Romney/Guiliani campaigns that emphasize market based incentives.
Krugman has conflated support for SCIMP with support for health care for children.
“So how can conservatives defend the indefensible, and oppose giving children the health care they need? By trying the old welfare queen in her Cadillac strategy”
Just another false dichotomy.
Fair enough. But there seemed to be some agreement that the SCHIP program was working well and was worthy of expansion. Bush claimed the refusal to expand the program was on “philosophical grounds.” That claim, as one might imagine, has puzzled many. Here’s Krugman’s earlier piece on the SCHIP program.
http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F3071FFC355A0C738FDDAE0894DF404482
That last remark isn’t a false dichotomy.
“Bush claimed the refusal to expand the program was on “philosophical grounds.””
I imagine it has puzzled many but not me. The philosophical ground is this: Economic interests trump ethical ones even when it’s children’s health at issue. Our first concern should be to the free market and if we can then work out some way to both promote children’s health care and the free market then that’s great, if not, then too bad for the kids without health insurance.
Of course it sounds much nicer to say something like “market based incentives.”
“But there seemed to be some agreement that the SCHIP program was working well and was worthy of expansion.”
I have taken note of the support this legislation has received from members of Congress, participants, and administrators, and it’s largely based on the number of children receiving benefits and the low cost of its maintenance. With regard to social welfare programs, this one seems to be efficient. That, of course, does not mean that it is necessarily the best way to insure children. But, that is really a debate for economists.
I’m more interested in the logical fallacy. Krugman has published a number of columns to the problem of the uninsured, and he has yet to really consider, analytically , arguments from the the other side. He has only, really, considered one proposal – that of Guiliani, briefly.
Krugman stays away from issues such as increases in demand for health services and their effect on price. Covering the uninsured would certainly drive up costs, a problem in a nation where 1 dollar in every 7 of income is spent on health care. I suppose it’s not really a false dichotomy, but rather a strawman or a non-argument. He just doesn’t bother to respond to the arguments of his opponents. Conservatives aren’t offering-up a single type of proposal, either.
Either way, thanks for the response.
“I have taken note of the support this legislation has received from members of Congress, participants, and administrators, and it’s largely based on the number of children receiving benefits and the low cost of its maintenance. With regard to social welfare programs, this one seems to be efficient. That, of course, does not mean that it is necessarily the best way to insure children. But, that is really a debate for economists.”
Maybe there’s a better way. That will always be true. It’s especially true when one has the notion that in principle privately delivered services are better, cheaper, and more efficient. So, yes, it is not “necessarily” the best way to insure children. Many argue, however, and this is hugely different, that as a matter of fact, it turns out to be the best available option.
I would also suggest that this debate concern more than economists. While some of them may be doctors, few of them are likely to need government assisted health care. They also might not be experts in Medicine, or education, or political science, or ethics, or any of the other considerations that should be brought to bear on such questions.
Krugman has considered arguments *for* and *against* a single-payer system. He has argued, among other things, that the current system and variations, when compared to other industrialized nations, delivers a poor quality of care for the amount of money invested. He has considered arguments on the other side. He just thinks they’re wrong and says why.
Remember that fallacies always apply to particular arguments. If Krugman commits one, then point out the specific argument where he does so. Generalized disagreement with his column doesn’t count.
“Krugman has considered arguments for and against a single-payer system. He has argued, among other things, that the current system and variations”
He certainly has entertained arguments against single-payer system, but only as straw-mans. When has he discussed the effect of more people demanding health services on the price of health care? Already, the inflation rate for the health care industry vastly oupaces that of the general inflation rate. Health Care expenses are currently the number one cause of bankruptcy in the United States.
In a nation with a debt that it can barely afford to sustain, what might the effect of more entitlement spending do to the availability of capital for private firms? With national income likely to take a huge hit with the retirement of the baby-boomers, is the system economically viable?
He has not really tackled any of the serious objections to universal health care, offered by conservative economists.
Whether or not children should be guaranteed health insurance is an issue, as you say, that belongs to more than just economists. Whether or not Universal Health Care is sustainable, should be left to economists.
“Remember that fallacies always apply to particular arguments. If Krugman commits one, then point out the specific argument where he does so. Generalized disagreement with his column doesn’t count.”
I have accused him of committing the straw-man fallacy by not considering the serious arguments from conservative economists. That seems valid.
Again, fallacies occur in particular arguments. If Krugman sets up and knocks down a straw man in some particular particular argument, then fine. Not picking what you take to be the strongest argument against a single payer system isn’t the same as knocking down a straw man. If he knocks down arguments actually advanced by people in the discussion (not kooks), then they’re not straw men. If you’re not sure how a fallacy works, consult the information elsewhere on this page.
In other matters, other industrialized nations have single payer systems and they get a better bang for the health care buck.
”If he knocks down arguments actually advanced by” people in the discussion (not kooks), then they’re not straw men.
That, I suppose, depends on the perceived conclusion. There are many faulty arguments being put forward against a Universal Health System, and Krugman has successfully refuted them. (efficiency, cost, etc). As there are well-grounded objections to Universal Health Care, one could conclude (rightly) that conservative politicians are misrepresenting their position.
Krugman arrives at a much different conclusion with his columns, this one in particular. If you are going to take the position that there are no credible arguments against the UHC, then shouldn’t you consider the strongest arguments offered by the opposition.
While he might evade a logical fallacy, he is oversimplifying the issue of American Health Care, which, if one were to read any substantial journal of Health Economics, is far from settled.
“In other matters, other industrialized nations have single payer systems and they get a better bang for the health care buck.”
That is far from clear. Read Cuyer, Lees, or Arrow, to understand why. An analysis of the relative merits of government involvement in the medical care is the issue of a paper that I’m currently reading. Honestly, were the issue as you purport it to be, the paper would hardly be worth writing.
You write:
“Krugman arrives at a much different conclusion with his columns, this one in particular. If you are going to take the position that there are no credible arguments against the UHC, then shouldn’t you consider the strongest arguments offered by the opposition.”
This column doesn’t advance any arguments for *universal* health care. Reread it.
You also write:
“While he might evade a logical fallacy, he is oversimplifying the issue of American Health Care, which, if one were to read any substantial journal of Health Economics, is far from settled.”
Again, if you’re going to accuse someone of committing a fallacy, then do everyone a favor and (a) understand what an argument is; (b) what a fallacy is; and (c) point out where the argument in question (which is not the same as your impression of their general point of view) commits that fallacy.
Whether or not the question of UHC is “settled” is really a separate question. Hardly any question of policy could be considered a settled question and I don’t think Krugman has treated it that way. He has primarily examined the rhetoric of the anti-health care public policy types. He hasn’t claimed, to my knowledge, that any and all arguments against UHC are crazy.
You write:
“Honestly, were the issue as you purport it to be, the paper would hardly be worth writing.”
Just because someone takes a position in an argument, does not mean that that person thinks all contrary positions have no value at all. You ought to be careful not to exaggerate the strengths of your opponent’s arguments in a cheap attempt to slander them.
“This column doesn’t advance any arguments for universal health care. Reread it.”
” that every American child is entitled to an education and saying that every American child is entitled to adequate health care.”
a. All American children are entitled to adequate health care. Isn’t that synonomous with every American should have access to adequate health care? in order to accomplish this, isn’t some strategy for universal care (at least for children) required?
“Again, if you’re going to accuse someone of committing a fallacy, then do everyone a favor and (a) understand what an argument is; (b) what a fallacy is; and (c) point out where the argument in question (which is not the same as your impression of their general point of view) commits that fallacy.”
If you would go back and reread my last post, you would notice that I conceded to your point about the lack of a strawman fallacy. I no longer posit that Krugman committed such a fallacy in this particular agrument.
Looking over his past few columns, he has been advancing a series of arguments in favor of a UFC. As a well-respected econonomist, I only wish that he would consider some of the stronger objections to the system offered by conservatives. You simply aren’t going to convince anyone to support UHC without responding to its long-standing ciriticisms, many of which are variations of arguments put foward in the 60’s.
“then do everyone a favor and (a) understand what an argument is”
Mr. Casey, I am well aware of what consitututes an argument. You needn’t worry Dr. Casey, I don’t offend easily.
Krugman argues that it’s inconsistent to deny *children* health care but not education. That’s not an argument for *universal* health care, but for coverage for all *children*. Even though everyone is someone’s child, not everyone is a child.
I say “understand what an argument is” because you seem to be confusing it with “point” or “conclusion” or some such thing. That’s a different sort of thing from “argument.” So in the recent discussion, Krugman has argued that denying children health care is un-american, in that we all think that everyone is entitled to an education (or many of us do). This hardly constitutes a conclusive argument for universal health care, so much as a critique of attitudes concerning health care for children.
As I have said several times, if Krugman has failed to take on some particular argument against universal health care, and has claimed to have established the desirability of UHC, then it’s incumbent on him to do that. That’s not what he’s doing, as I read him, however. I read him has making related arguments on the rhetoric of UHC discussions among AEI types. I think he could hardly claim to have answered all objections concerning it (as you are alleging he has). He hasn’t even seriously discussed the relevant economics. While that might be a question you have, that may not be the question he’s trying to answer.