Florida Conservative

A Conservative Take on Florida and U.S. Politics

Back to the Health Care Debate

leave a comment »

House Minority Leader (and former Speaker) Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) strongly believes in fairness and equality.  She sees herself as a champion of the less fortunate.  Unfortunately, she’s not good with numbers and she’s terrible at understanding cause and effect.  Consider this article by Debra Saunders.

While I strongly believe we have a responsibility to care for our neighbors, I’m still not convinced  massive government programs are the way to do it.  It’s critically important that political leaders understand the likely results of their actions before crafting legislation, but that’s clearly not very high on the list of traits voters look for (especially since it can’t be boiled down to an R or a D).

Since a crash course in consequences for all 535 voting members of Congress may be difficult to implement, let’s instead tackle another problem.  They’ve already solved Social Security (no one worries about the ability to live in retirement, right?), Welfare (I assume the welfare rolls decrease each year as recipients find jobs), and Healthcare (see Ms. Pelosi’s comments in the article above), so why not fix America’s hunger epidemic?  [Author’s note:  No one has yet explained how both a hunger epidemic and a functioning welfare system can co-exist.  I assume it’s a good reason.]

Before we can solve a problem, we need to fully understand it.  The cost of eating out for millions of Americans has been increasing rapidly in recent years.  Since most parents/guardians subsidize the cost of meals, the cost to consumers is reduced.  Further, annual dining privileges cards have been introduced which require large monthly payments but only token payments at the restaurant itself.  Over the past 50 years the number of Americans dining out has increased considerably each year, thereby increasing the overall cost of dining out.  Sadly, the increase in cost has made many Americans unable to eat out very often, either through choice or inability to pay.  In an emergency, they know they can enjoy a meal at a high-end steakhouse because Congress has mandated that high-end steakhouses cannot turn anyone away (even if unable to pay).  Still, the fact that so many American don’t eat out often is troubling. 

In response, Congress should consider a complete take-over of the restaurant industry.  Based on a very limited understanding of basic economic principles and in direct contrast to recent history, more people eating out will actually lower costs!  Rather than allowing consumers to determine restaurant success and failure, government intervention could somehow lower costs while increasing the number of meals available.  New “hunger prevention” meals could also be provided to everyone at no cost, thereby further reducing the cost of dining out.  As Americans dine out more frequently, their ability to consume food will also increase, thereby further lowering the price of meals.

There’s probably an analogy that could be made here, but I can’t quite put my finger on it…


Written by floridaconservative

May 31, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Posted in Healthcare

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: