Good Intentions?

There is an old saying about the road to hell and what it is paved with. Last Tuesday, Jazz and I did a show on health care options. Since both of us take more of a free market approach we were castigated by one emailer as being cold-hearted (ok there was a little more to the description but it is not suitable for polite company). I suppose, if the emailer is correct, then maybe we are a little cold-hearted. After all Jazz and I were opposing a system that makes pregnant women wait 10 months for a slot in the maternity ward. We are opposing a system that telling doctors to with hold treatment for the old and unhealthy in order to maintain costs. After all - they MEAN WELL when they have government give out "free" health care. Surely the Greater Minnesota Health Care Coalition and the NEA don't want old folks to be denied health care any more than the want disabled children denied health care....right?????

I was sent this article in relation to the pending Breed Ban that Rep. John Lesch is proposing this session. The National Animal Interest Alliance (NAIA) has a long history of fighting this kind of legislation. However, the study that they quote has a larger implication.

A landmark study published last year in one of America's most respected scholarly journals provides powerful evidence that "feel-good" legislation – indiscriminate and/or unenforceable bans, as well as draconian sanctions applied to behavior that is already illegal – degrades respect for law and reduces compliance, while aggravating (or at best, failing to improve) the problems these laws were supposedly enacted to solve.

The study specifically addresses gun laws in the U.S. and worldwide. "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence," by Don B. Kates and Gary A. Mauser: Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, vol. 30, pages 651-694. But its broader point supports a central reality that has long been recognized by the National Animal Interest Alliance: whether lawmakers target pet owners or gun owners, ill-conceived "feel-good" laws usually just make things worse.

Emphasis mine. I understand that the folks at the GMHCC really want to help....they want to make it better for those without health insurance. I GET THAT....what I don't get is why people like our emailer just don't get that rationed health care - such as they are seeing in the UK and in Canada are worse! They simply don't get that it will lead to something much worse than what we have today....a system where people with chronic diseases are shuttled off to institutions and left to die...with minimal care because that care will cost the government too much. Can someone please tell me what is "compassionate" about that?

It's called the Law of Unintended Consequences it is something that we really need to be aware of the next time we want to do something in order to "feel good".