OMGSOCIALISM

One of the more ludicrous habits of Fox News commentators, National Review writers, and other conservative media types is their love of the word "socialism." You most often hear this term used in connection with government-provided health care.

But this is obviously silly. If government-provided health care is socialist, doesn't that mean government-provided highways and police forces are socialist too?

For a more hilarious version of this simple argument, watch this video.

There are some goods that, through various countries' trial and error, we have learned are best provided by the private sector. Cars, for instance. TVs. Housing. Finance (that's right, you heard me!). Government may regulate these markets to alleviate the problem of asymmetric information (fraud), but cars and TVs and housing and finance are not public goods.

Then there are some goods that, through various countries' trial and error, we have learned are best provided by the government. Roads. Police. Electrical grids. Jails. Basic research. No one, not even Glenn Beck, questions that these are public goods.

Then there are the cases in the middle, where a good isn't clearly public and isn't clearly private - or, to put it more accurately, has aspects of both. Education is one of these, since it provides benefits both to the recipient (by preparing them for life and work), and society (by keeping kids off the street, teaching kids civic values and good behavior, standardization of curricula, etc.). There is still controversy over whether education should be public or private, although those in favor of "public" have massively won and look set to continue to win.

Then there is health care. In the public/private spectrum, health care is probably right on the borderline. Obviously it's a private good (you want to be well, right?), but it has public aspects as well - preventing communicable diseases, freeing people from family obligations, etc. Some countries have government-provided health care, some have private, but it isn't really clear which is better in general. Our health care system is pretty crappy in many ways, but that's just one data point, not a trend; it might be that tweaking some regulations could improve us up to European levels of care without the need for government to take over the business. Or maybe not.

But the point is, to label government-provided health care "socialism" is obviously missing the point. The purpose of government-provided health care is not redistribution of wealth. It is no more "socialist" than the road in front of your house. But that doesn't deter the Fox news crowd, who would rather yell "OMG Socialism!" than actually think about the intricacies of health policy.