Milton Friedman was fond of explaining how public higher education was welfare for rich kids--people from Watts paying for the education of kids from Beverly Hills was how he colorfully put it. So it is with a sense of humor that I observe campus brat-fits from Amherst to Berkeley.

Whatever the intention of public higher education, the result isn't subsidized college for the poor. There is no financial barrier preventing rich kids from attending, say, Penn State or the University of Virginia. Many do. In fact, about four out of five college students attend state institutions. Obviously, four out of five college students are not poor. The fact that many well-off teenagers enjoy college educations subsidized by taxpayers is a perverse outcome of public higher education. Poor kids, who have a tough time making it through high school, generally don't make it to college. Another perverse outcome is that many low- and middle-class students who do make it to college can't afford the skyrocketing costs of a public education.

There is a crisis in the areas of American life most consumed by socialism. Largely as a result of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, the federal government plays an enourmous role in higher education and medicine. The Higher Education Act of 1965 and Medicare and Medicaid, all created within four months in 1965, promised to bring down the costs of education and medicine, respectively. They didn't. They inflated the costs. That's the unintended consequence of mandating third parties (taxpayers) to subsidize interested parties (students and schools).

There are other issues at play with regard to passing the buck on paying for college. An explosion of unnecessary administrators, a conspicuous consumption desire for "Club Med" style recreation facilities, the inclusion of students who use college to extend adolescence rather than study, etc. But these are largely symptoms of Free Ride Syndrome.

The painful irony is that the more horribly these programs perform in bringing down price, the louder the demands from their advocates to strengthen the programs. To the partisan of big government, that's the beauty of it: failure is an argument for more big government. The skyrocketing of health-care costs since the intrusion by the federal government isn't coincidental. Should ObamaCare pass, its failure will rationalize future increases in the government's role in health care. Likewise, the failure of enormous subsidies by state and local governments to reign in tuition and other college costs is, from the mouths of the traffic-stopping protestors, an argument to expand such subsidies. Do they teach logic in college any longer?

As Americans are finding out with regard to health insurance, when we pass the buck to somebody else--financial aid, the health insurance company, medicaid--the commodity in question inflates in price. A solution to the related problems of out-of-control health-care costs and out-of-control college costs is to remove third-party payers from the equation as much as possible and allow the consumer to pay (or not). The result of not doing so is plain to see on every doctor and tuition bill.

"An explosion of unnecessary administrators, a conspicuous consumption desire for "Club Med" style recreation facilities, the inclusion of students who use college to extend adolescence rather than study. . ."

Amen.

"Seven years of college, down the drain"!

{sigh}

Amen to this entire post. It's all so sadly--so horribly--true.

"A solution to the related problems of out-of-control health-care costs and out-of-control college costs is to remove third-party payers from the equation as much as possible and allow the consumer to pay (or not). The result of not doing so is plain to see on every doctor and tuition bill."

Haven't you heard? The days of independence and personal responsibilities are over. It's all coming up to the nanny state taking care of us poor adult children and controlling our lives from cradle to grave.

Look what's happening in Greece. They have unsustainable spending on social programs and other government largesse and are as broke as broke can be. Yet, the populace are protesting and going nuts when that same government suggests certain 'austerity measures' that are designed to encourage other nations to lend to them and to keep the country on financial life support.

As is what's happening in America, when government increases dependency, the citizenry eventually loses that independent 'can do' attitude and falls back on more dependency. And statists are always more than happy to maintain that formula.

asdf: You're right, and that's why I envy the dead. They don't have to see what's going to happen to our country, probably in our lifetimes.

I am a die-hard capitalist. Really. But I am also a human being, an American Citizen, a writer. Hell -- I can think of many different titles that vary in specificity and scope and they all can define me at any moment.

It is too much rhetorical trickery to take a monopoloy on the word "patriot", to subvert it to mean that which only shares your point of view, no matter what your point of view may be (within reason). At the inception of our new country, I am sure many were torn between the identity of "American" and "Englishman." Many also called themselves "fathers" and "Christians", "hard workers" and "law abiding citizens." What were they to do when they were first instructed that their declaration of independence would put their families in harm's way, that their scorn of British rule would be breaking the law?

Things are not always as black and white and this blog might have you believe. So I say again that I am a "Capitalist." Thus it might seem strange to some that I am not averse to our great country "meddling" with health care.

How can I say this? Because, dear friends, I am so many things in addition to: Capitalist. My life is not arranged in such a way that I can defy common sense or shrug off my moral duty by chaining together every facet of my being to just one of my philosophies.

This great debate of health care is no longer a debate. Sides have been chosen and the partisans seek only that evidence which gives weight to their cause. Let me give you an example:

Dan wrote a book called, "Why the Left Hates America." I don't consider myself "left", although the term is entirely relative and subject to shifting cultural mores. Nevertheless, my sense of reason is offended by this basic premise. Surely the left doesn't hate America, although I have no doubt Dan will weave a compelling narrative to demonstrate that indeed they do. I know this because we always receive the answers to the questions we ask, even if our questions are flawed. Our brains are semantic engines. Garbage in, garbage out.

Dan knows this too, but he also knows the title is compelling, catchy, and memorable. It will have an instant market among conservatives who believe just that. Is it true?

It can be. It can also be an utter lie. The problem is that the "left" in question is an artificial construction. The "left" is not a concrete, empirical object like "granite." So we must both have a rock solid understanding that those four letters L-E-F-T mean the same thing to you as they do to me. And that we both share the same context.

Play a thought game with me. Why the Right Hates America. I don't believe this either, but perhaps it exists on a book shelf somewhere. Sounds plausible. Although the title may annoy you, aren't you even more annoyed that somewhere people exist that believe this very maxim?

Surely you will decry them as morons, or heathens, or some other kind of us-versus-them title that elevates you as superior, and "them" as ignorant.

But wouldn't you be more content to educate them that their premise is false? And if you can entertain this thought game, can you also entertain the notion that the left -- this intellectual concept of the left -- exists only in a functional sense, and that the actual people that comprise what you consider the mainstream left wing of American politics don't actually hate America?

I may have all kinds of reasons why I think we need to fix health care; I may have solutions that you disagree with. But how honest will our debate be if you think that I serve a different agenda than you do? Do you really think that I wish for my children some apocalyptic future, that I want to blanket them in governmental red tape, that I want them to grow up with a paucity of family values?

I do not. Let me say it again. I am a Capitalist. But I also support health care reform. There: I said it. I agree with suggestions offered on both sides of the aisle, but I am also aware of the tenor of this debate, and I recognize obstructionism and short term political posturing when I see it.

Dan, why be just a good blogger, when you can be a great blogger? I don't mean that you should adopt my politics, or even agree with me on style or substance. I ask only that you agree that we need a media that transcends shallow bickering.

You are just as important than the politicians in Washington because you are key to the democratic process itself. You are the conduit between them and us. You explain what is happening with your thoughtful words, and that puts a burden of on your shoulders to tell the truth as best you can.

So that we can make our decisions the best WE CAN. I consider your books and your blog just as important as "Meet the Press." So by all means, explain how Obama's plan violates some immutable law of righteousness, but always keep everything in context, and have your diatribe serve the facts instead of the other way around.

Maybe that just means stepping back and questioning basic assumptions. Are there ever places where ONE doesn't want the profit/market motives at work? If there are, in what situations?

Are there going to be discrepancies between the reality experienced in 1787 and the reality experienced in 2010? How would this affect our legislation, public policy, and even our constitution?

What about the global economy, the internet, and the dwindling resources on our planet? Surely these all play a role in how Adam Smith conceived the world. How do they affect the way Capitalism will work and service our pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness?

It is easy to find a flaw in any proposal, document, work of art, or piece of legislation. I can tell you a bunch of reasons how Avatar could be better.

It is much more difficult to contribute pragmatically to the debate on how we can improve the world, or better yet, to go about improving the world ourselves. I may have quibbles with Avatar, but I am glad James Cameron made it.

I am also glad you have this blog. It is a good blog and Dan Flynn is a good author. But I hope one day he can be GREAT. I hope the debate on this blog can be great.

We get it: you don't like the "left." Surely you didn't come to Earth to peddle many versions of that same sentence?

James

ps:

Found a terrific new blog post:

http://rulesofthumbbook.blogspot.com/2010/03/aetna-welcomes-you-to-grand-canyon.html

An extract is printed below...

What if, instead of having a federal highway administration, we'd just let private companies build the roads? They could lay them out as they wanted, and then we'd pay for the privilege of driving on them? Of course, they might not all match up. And some might be more expensive than others. But, hey, that's capitalism!

There'd been a bunch of tourists from Germany, France, Japan, even the Middle East at the Grand Canyon. I was betting they'd flown there.

What if we had competing private sector airports, each with its own privately held control towers? I wonder how safe that would be? At least it would open things up to competition! And if there were accidents, well, isn't that how the free market works?

Apparently we want national parks, and we want one highway system that is uniform, and we'd just as soon have a coordinated system for air safety.

But not for health. Or health care.

That's why we've got large insurance companies, like, say, Aetna, whose CEO, Ronald A. Williams, made $24.3 million in compensation last year. And $23 million the year before. For selling insurance.

Or Cigna's H. Edward Hanway, who made $12.2 million last year, and $25.8 million the year before that. For selling insurance.

Can you imagine what Mr. Williams could have made if, say, he ran the Grand Canyon? Or administered the free market in freeways?

He could have pulled down some really big bucks!

So remind me again: Why is there no public option for health insurance? And why is this industry, which is so fundamental to each American's health and well-being, allowed to operate with this kind of impunity?

I'm sorry James, but liberal is as liberal does and, in my opinion, your screed demonstrates all of the wishy washy confused attitudes of the modern lib.

Take this to the bank: THIS IS NOT ABOUT Healthcare! Never has been. It is about government taking control of a sizable piece of the U.S. economy and to reconstruct a large financially complex industry to control it and to enable big brother to take over the lives of every man, woman and child in this country. Literally, it will allow government bureaucrats to make decisions about life and death.

If they were serious about "fixing" healthcare, the government would work with the existing private companies to create a better mousetrap. But they won't because that is not the point.

The good news it that a majority of the American people get this. The bad news is that so many other people get sucked into this by emotion and the ego fueled expectations that they are of a higher mind and are more noble than the rest of us uncaring knuckle draggers.

Anecdotes of the suffering uninsured and how if our kinder gentler government were running the show things will be just as right as rain and that all of the issues and problems will go away are just like fairy tales. And, as some see it, nobody would die.

For some of these reasons, looking at it in black and white terms seems to be the more logical and pragmatic way to go.

@James, I imagine that if you actually read the book, "Why the Left Hates America" you would actually understand to whom Dan is referring. In fact I believe he refers to a specific group of people, and not the "the actual people that comprise what you consider the mainstream left wing of American politics" Dan does not refer to the "mainstream left wing." Read the book then take your foot out of your mouth.