NOTE: While I did support certain candidates in the 2019–20 Democratic primaries because of their ideas (e.g. UBI, anti-war, broad tent approach), it doesn't mean I endorse their other positions.
Welcome to TaraElla News, the news report where we examine the latest political and cultural news from the perspective of the classical liberal spirit.
Today, we will begin a multi-part examination of the things Andrew Yang said in the recent CNN debate. Yang was again given the least amount of time to speak, but even with this disadvantage, he managed to make a few very important points, and was widely seen as one of the winners of the night. Today, I will focus on his argument on Medicare For All.
Once a fringe position, Medicare For All has grown to become very mainstream in the Democratic Party, in just a few years. While many 2020 candidates are climbing aboard the Medicare For All bandwagon, their arguments often sounds similar to each other. There's the humanitarian argument, the economic effciency argument, and the argument that big pharma and the healthcare industry shouldn't be able to profit off sick people while putting their health at risk. While all these arguments are valid and important, there's something missing. I think Andrew Yang may have provided the final missing piece of the Medicare For All puzzle.
Basically, Yang argued for Medicare For All from the perspective of the business environment. From the perspective of business owners, Medicare For All makes it easier to hire people, especially full-time employees, because there wouldn't be a need to include health insurance for them anymore. From the perspective of individuals, Medicare For All makes it easier to switch jobs, and to start a business, because they wouldn't lose their current health care arrangements by leaving their current job. All this means a more efficient labor market, more flexibility and mobility, which is good for both employers and workers.
I think the point about Medicare For All removing a big barrier for those wanting to start a business was an especially important one. Something many people have forgotten is that, a big part of the classical liberal vision was that the market would have low barriers to entry, so that it would be feasible for most individuals to save enough to start a business before they were too old. The original American dream wasn't about working like a slave for someone else just to be able to pay the bills; it was about being able to take one's ideas and run with it in the free market. Therefore, our current situation is not the classical liberal vision of a free market; it is nothing less than a betrayal of this vision. In this day and age, when the barriers for entry into business are so high, the class-based conditions of feudal society have been effectively re-created. I believe that a real classical liberal should be much more concerned with this, than with the size of the federal government.
Which brings me back to why Yang's argument is so important. A lot of the remaining resistance to Medicare For All is surrounding the idea that such a program would grow the size of the federal government, and hence move away from classical liberalism and towards statism. But this would be to see classical liberalism as having a narrow focus on cutting federal government, without regard for human outcomes in the bigger picture, which would not be in line with what the great 19th century classical liberals actually wanted. I believe that, by situating Medicare For All in the larger picture of how we can achieve classical liberal objectives, we can bring many more M4A skeptics on board.
That's all for today. I'll be back next time to discuss another big idea. Subscribe if you want to follow our story. The transcripts are available on the internet. And remember to resist the hive mind and stay individualistic. The world depends on it.
