- Image via Wikipedia
In the course of the debate over health care reform, many stock political tactics have been employed. One of the classic methods is the use of the myth of incompetence. This method is based on the popular stereotype (or myth) that governments are incapable of competent action. On this view, anything the government does will be , a priori, bloated, wasteful, ineffective, costly and probably oppressive. Usually associated with this myth is the myth of competence. This is the stereotype (or myth) that non-government actors (like businesses or individual folks) will always do things better than the government (less bloated, less wasteful, more effective, cheaper, and without oppression).
In some cases, the folks using the myths do back them up with examples. For example, the myth of incompetence is supported by pointing to the DMV, the Post Office and Amtrak. Pointing at the military is generally considered bad form, however. The general idea is that these examples show how the government is and must be in regards to competence (or rather the lack thereof).
While these examples (and so many others, such as the handling of Katrina and the sorry state of our public infrastructure) show that there are serious problems with some government programs and actions, to assume that anything run by the state must be done incompetently seems to be a rather hasty generalization.
Of course, it can be argued that the evidence is rather substantial evidence for government incompetence across the board. After all, one can go back through history and pile up example after example of incompetence (or worse, outright corruption).
I will, for the sake of the discussion, grant that the government (or rather the folks that do the actual stuff) is lacking in competence. However, the question arises as to whether or not the government is significantly less competent than the non-government actors (business and individuals). After all, the myth of incompetence (or the reality, if you prefer) is typically used in conjunction with the myth of competence. For example, in the health reform debate the incompetence of the state is matched unfavorably against the competence of the private sector.
In the case of the myth of competence, it is argued that non-government actors (especially business) have to be competent in order to continue to survive. Folks often say “why, if a company did what the government did, it would go out of business” or even “if I worked like the government did, I’d be fired.” But, these claims do not seem to be generally true. To show this, I’ll start small and then work up.
Think of the people you know and work with. Now ask yourself how competent they are. How often do you think “wow, my friends and co-workers are amazingly competent!”
Next, think of the folks you work for. Do you praise their competence each day? At least once a week? Monthly? Ever?
Now, think of the businesses that you deal with. Do you regard these folks as competent? In my own case, I have doubts. For example, when I go to the doctor or dentist I usually have to wait at least 30 minutes after my appointment time to be seen. Then I spend 15-30 minutes waiting to see the actual doctor or dentist once I have been taken to the appointment area. As other examples, I have been ignored at McDonalds, had my orders horribly screwed up at restaurants, had repair jobs take three times longer than promised, had paperwork lost, been overcharged and so on. I’m sure that you have plenty of examples of your own.
Of course, I can bring out the really huge examples such as the folks involved in the sub-prime mess, AIG, General Motors, Chevy, and so on. Those businesses were clearly not models of competence.
Now, some folks might argue that the government helped ruin some business and such the state must take the blame for leading the sweet and innocent business folks down the path of incompetence.
In reply, the government did have a role in allowing business to do rather stupid things by deregulating and so on. Of course, this was mostly at the behest of business folks and, of course, the business people were not forced to make stupid choices. The government has, I must admit, played a role in keeping incompetent businesses going-but this is (once again) at the behest of those businesses. That is, the allegedly competent companies are lobbying the state to enable their incompetent behavior. The state, so far, has been quite willing to go along (that is, the folks being swayed by lobbyist cash and promises are enabling this).
My point in all this is that incompetence seems to be everywhere. Sure, it is in the government-but only because people seem to generally be low in competence. As such, there seems to be no special reason to fear government incompetence over the incompetence of the private sector.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://i2.wp.com/img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png)
Camile Paglia wonders why professional elites are credulous about big government solutions:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/09/09/healthcare/
Though they claim to speak for the poor and dispossessed, Democrats have increasingly become the party of an upper-middle-class professional elite, top-heavy with journalists, academics and lawyers (one reason for the hypocritical absence of tort reform in the healthcare bills). Weirdly, given their worship of highly individualistic, secularized self-actualization, such professionals are as a whole amazingly credulous these days about big-government solutions to every social problem. They see no danger in expanding government authority and intrusive, wasteful bureaucracy. This is, I submit, a stunning turn away from the anti-authority and anti-establishment principles of authentic 1960s leftism.
They care for the poor, they care for the dispossessed and they care to fight for the rights of killers. Only when it comes to political power and the votes it may get them. When it comes to the rights of the truly helpless, viable human babies, they show their true colors. Abortion is as far as you need to look to see that the Left only has compassion if it gets them power.
Is that true of everyone on the left? Are they all such selfish and uncaring monsters?
No, I do not imagine so, but it is one of the key pivotal issues(abortion) of the Democrats. How many of them run at election time stating they are against abortion?
I’m not a politician, and I sure don’t speak for all democrats, but I am against abortion! I agree that the unborn are truly helpless and in need of protection and advocacy! I am pro-life….Anti-Abortion, Anti-Capital Punishment, Anti-War! I also believe that health care is a pro-life issue and I support efforts to provide food, clothing, and shelter to any American that can not provide for themselves. I don’t care WHY they can’t provide these things. The reason doesn’t change the fact that they are human beings and are in need. ALL life should be protected from CONCEPTION to NATURAL DEATH! Not from conception to birth.
Does anybody remember Walter Reed? I don’t see that this could happen in the private sector.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Reed_Army_Medical_Center_neglect_scandal
WRAMC’s Building 18 is described in the article as rat- and cockroach-infested, with stained carpets, cheap mattresses, and black mold, with no heat and water reported by some soldiers at the facility. The unmonitored entrance created security problems, including reports of drug dealers in front of the facility. Injured soldiers stated they are forced to “pull guard duty” to obtain a level of security. In an attempt to alleviate the toll that Building 18’s condition is taking on the wounded soldiers, a staff team headed by a clinical social worker at WRAMC obtained a grant of $30,000 from the Commander’s Initiative Account for improvements; however, “a Psychiatry Department functionary held up the rest of the money because she feared that buying a lot of recreational equipment close to Christmas would trigger an audit.” By January the funds were no longer available.
Renovation of Building 18 had been anticipated in connection with the enhanced use lease of Building 40, but since the post was slated for closure under BRAC in 2005, the anticipated in-kind services by the Building 40 developer did not materialize.
Although the Post’s authors are quick to point out that “not all the quarters are as bleak as” Building 18, “the despair of Building 18 symbolizes a larger problem in Walter Reed’s treatment of the wounded. The typical soldier is required to file 22 documents with eight different commands – most of them off-post – to enter and exit the medical processing world, according to government investigators. Sixteen different information systems are used to process the forms, but few of them can communicate with one another. The Army’s three personnel databases cannot read each other’s files and can’t interact with the separate pay system or the medical recordkeeping databases.” [6] This complicated system has required some soldiers to prove they were in the Iraq War or the War in Afghanistan in order to obtain medical treatment and benefits because Walter Reed employees are unable to locate their records.
Another failure of the government running a program? Shocker!
Actually, there are problems in the private sector that are comparable. For example, consider an article from back in 1999 about nursing home problems.
Consider where they get most of their inadequate funding and an exception does not make the rule. Does Amtrak make money? Does the Post Office make money? Does our Social Security system make more than a negative return? Will a National Healthcare System make money? Do government funded public schools make money? In the end who pays for all of this loss of money? A government program that was run well and made money would definitely be an exception to the rule.
Alo, when the government runs something as big as healthcare, it becomes a sort of monopoly. The result: Poorer standards.
TJ, it is indeed as this article states when it comes to the big mess of getting things done in the Army. Usually I just avoid trying to get little things that are supposed to be of benefit to soldiers because I like my free time…..
Mike,
You are confusing incompetence with inefficiency. You know what a command economy is. It’s not so simple as: Communism: Evil; Capitalism: Good. Command economies simply cannot be efficient in large scale arenas, they don’t even come close to the market’s ability to regulate by supply and demand. Not that there are not problems with the supply and demand control (mostly monopolies, corruption and lack of effective competition)but command econies are far worse.
Believe me when I say this: The army, which is a command economy of sorts (it needs to account for food, clothing, training, housing, and a myriad of other things)and is THE most ineffient, beurracratic, time-wasting machine I have ever seen. And I’m not sure there’s any other way it can be, because by its very nature it must have a central command controlling what goes where. Also, there is a lack of motivational self-interest; everything’s the same for individuals (at least in the short term) regardless of how they perform.
Government run healthcare is plain and simple less efficient and capable than private medicine and measurably so. Plus, the problem is not what the left tries to portray it to be–it is for the most part a strawman.
I am inclined to agree, but folks do argue that large corporations gain from economies of scale and having a central command structure. WalMart, for example, is often presented as a model of large scale success.
One way to avoid the command problem is to have an overall system that is handled more directly at the local level. This could be based on a franchise model (Krispy Kreme health care, anyone?).
OK–which begs the question: What’s wrong with market driven healthcare that government healthcare could fix and on a whole make better? Sounds like you’re saying keep things the way they are, only call it government.
My view is that national health care should follow the same approach as Social Security or unemployment: it should be there for folks in need. However, the private option should remain as well (just like folks should have the option to invest for their retirement in the private sector).
I also see a clear need for reform in health care. Obvious things that are needed are changes in the malpractice laws (although we still need strict regulations and penalties), price reforms, and steps to reduce the dangerous mistakes that happen in hospitals. Some of this will be fairly easy. For example, when I had my surgery the folks had a safety procedure that was used repeatedly and worked well-everyone who did anything to me confirmed my identity, the procedure that was to be done, and what had been done. Also, I had an ID tag and the leg that was to be operated on was clearly marked. Taking those simple and easy steps would avoid some of the horror stories. Also, improvements in basic health practices do wonders. As another example, I was instructed to shower using anti-bacterial soap before the surgery. When I got to the waiting room, I had to swab down complete with anti-bacterial wipes and the surgical team also followed the right procedures. The result: no infection.
The news does a good job offocusing on the horror stories. Remember the news anxiety you wrote about?
I think the news is giving people a distorted sense of proportion on certain events. I’ve had 5 knee surgeries. My father has had foot, carpal tunnel, shoulder and brain surgery. My grandmother has had her thyroid removed, cataract surgery, disks in her back removed and heaven knows what else. I brought numerous people to the hospital as a cop, bleeding, drunk, evicerated, you name it. They were never turned away. Homeless drunks with only enough money for their next bottle who got multi-thousand dollar MRIs and X-Rays and surgeries. And never paid a dime.
I have to give the system some credit. Our hospitals are very good–the best in the world I think.
An yes, sme private organizations are worse than the government.
ACORN anyone?
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=9397738&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/
ACORN is really bad. Check out this video:
Should this surprise anyone? Acorn is government funded by the way. We are in a way accomplices to these crimes as we give them the money to be crooks and political hacks.