Krugman: Eat your broccoli and shut up!
[Update]: I include commentary from David Henderson on Krugman’s column. Henderson writes:
Well, guess what? I’m a health-care expert. In fact, I was employed as one for two years by the same boss who employed Paul Krugman, namely, Martin Feldstein. From 1982 to 1984, I was the senior economist for health policy with the Council of Economic Advisers. I don’t find the comparison horrifying at all.
Here’s why. If you don’t buy health insurance until you’re sick, then when you get sick, you drive up the price of health insurance for others. If you don’t eat broccoli, and your not doing so makes you sick, you drive up the price of health insurance for others.
Now, there is a way around both conclusions: allow health insurance companies to sell insurance, as that term is generally understood. Let them price according to risk. Then, when people don’t buy health insurance until they are sick, the price will be quite high and they will not be subsidized by others. Similarly with broccoli. If eating broccoli makes you healthier, and if that health can be measured, your insurance rates, all else equal, will be lower. Those who refuse to eat broccoli will have worse health and will pay higher rates.
Paul Krugman’s recent column on the “broccoli” question reveals a number of things, including Krugman’s insistence that government can create a wonderful medical system through coercion, and anyone who disagrees wants people to get sick and die. That is a pretty typical Krugman argument — those who agree with him do so for the most evil of reasons — and Don Boudreaux has his own rejoinder in his Cafe Hayek response:
Never mind that Mr. Krugman here implicitly demands that the Court do what all of a sudden horrifies so many “Progressives,” namely, ground its constitutional rulings on detailed analyses of facts and policy. Such analysis would indeed expose several practical differences between commerce in vegetables and commerce in insurance.
Focus instead on Mr. Krugman’s failure to understand that there is indeed a relevant and looming similarity between broccoli and insurance – a similarity that likely sparked Justice Scalia’s question. If my failure to buy health insurance puts upward pressure on health-care costs for other Americans – and thus justifies the government forcing me to buy insurance – doesn’t my failure to eat a healthy diet likewise put upward pressure on health-care costs for other Americans and, thus, justify the government forcing me to buy broccoli? If not, why not?
Given government’s zeal to control ever-more aspects of private life, such questions are not Constitutionally trivial.
With Michelle Obama jetting around the country telling people what they can and cannot eat, and the Food Police being ramped up, I find it interesting that Krugman attacks the whole “broccoli” issue. After all, the government that Krugman so lionizes is doing everything it can to force people to purchase and eat Obama-approved food and the Food Police are seeking and gaining more power every day.
As for insurance, I find it interesting that Krugman is so gung-ho about using coercion as a means to further what really are government schemes. The point is that if government can coerce you to purchase one thing — semantics about products and taxes aside — government can coerce you to purchase anything that Progressives believe is “good for society.”
In the end, Paul Krugman is all about Rule of Force. Progressives like himself determine what is good for everyone else, and then others are forced to obey — or go to prison. That is the reality of Krugman’s Progressivism.
Check out the “Krugman in Wonderland” posts here on DOB – click here
William L. Anderson is an author and an associate professor of economics at Frostburg State University in Maryland. He is also an adjunct scholar with the Mackinac Center for Public Policy as well as for the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Alabama.
Read more at “Krugman-in-Wonderland”