Single Payer Food Now!
(Third, probably last, in a series of rants inspired by Doctroid's post "Health and the Republic"
Stossel already did a riff on this, as did http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo176.html and http://www.cascadepolicy.org/pdf/health_ss/2002_26.pdf and http://dailycapitalist.com/2009/05/26/single-payer-system/ etc., etc.
But they were preaching to the faithful. I hope mine makes a little sense to the other side of the pew.
Decades ago, the nation of Vespucciland was embroiled in a big war and Parliament decreed that business owners could not raise prices nor wages and salaries. But they still had to compete for workers, so some tried to upgrade the workplace decor and others installed bowling alleys next to the cafeterias. But some hit on the idea of providing their workers with a unique benefit - membership in a food coop. Food coops worked great. The employers used it to compete for workers and got a tax deduction for the expense. The workers (initially) got the perk for free and only had to pay a fraction of their grocery bills.
After the war ended, the system was so pervasive and popular that no employer dared drop the coverage. Workers' unions fought to make the terms of coop membership more beneficial to the workers - lower copays, for example. Initially aimed at "staple" food items, eventually coops entitled members to get the finest cuts of steak and fancy pastries, as well. The grocery stores and farmers loved the food coop system, too, for several reasons. They were guaranteed payment, and they no longer got arguments about the cost of the food. People were wandering through grocery stores, picking up whatever they wanted, and not looking at the prices. In fact, they couldn't look at the prices because there were no price stickers. A few would ask, but grocers would look at them like they were crazy and say "why do you need to know? The coop will cover it."
But the coop administrators had to pass the costs back to the employers, who were not happy about it. So coops started competed among each other to rein in the ever-increasing costs, but it wasn't easy. They had to hire small armies of analysts to track the prices grocers and farmers were charging, to set limits that were meaningful enough to save costs but weren't so onerous that coop members would leave and join a different coop. In the meantime, grocers and farmers educated themselves on all the coop rules, and learned the best ways to label and price food items to their advantage.
Parliament "helped" too. They created numerous laws, and the Bureau of Food and Drugs to administer them. Grocers were required to take years of training to become licensed, and anyone practicing grocery without a license faced jail time. Standards were enforced. For example, only fresh-squeezed orange juice could be sold; frozen concentrate was banned. Bread had to be whole grain and could not be more than one day old. Milk had to come from a farm within 20 miles and could only be sold by the gallon. Hamburger had to be 99% lean, ground in specialized central facilities, and shipped to stores in special trucks. This was all done in the name of protecting the consumer. To prevent costly duplication, grocery stores could only be opened where there was a demonstrable community need.
The cost of coop membership kept rising, but the alternative was worse. If you lost your job, you lost your coop membership. And without a job, it was very hard to get into a coop, especially if you were overweight or had teenagers in your family. The small fraction of people without coop membership saw the true price of food - and it was horrendous. A gallon of milk cost $25; a loaf of bread $10; a pound of hamburger $35. But as fast as prices went up, the cost of coop membership went up even faster. Coop members, when they still had a choice, chose the better cuts of meat, the better brands of bread, the tastier snacks, the more exotic coffee. And the grocers and farmers responded by giving them ever more expensive delicacies to choose from.
But grocers and farmers were struggling, too, under the crushing weight of paperwork that had to be filled out to satisfy both the BFD and the many coops' different monitoring requirements. To cut costs, grocers cut back on service and customers found they had to wait in longer lines at the deli counter and had to phone in their bakery orders ahead of time.
Generally, the coops came to be despised by members and grocers alike, because no one was happy with the system.
The fraction of GNP devoted to groceries eventually got so high, it was regarded as a crisis and Parliament debated what to do about it. Many people said it was the fault of the coops, or, more specifically, the evil coop administrators who manipulated the system to make a profit. Others included the grocers and farmers, who also made profits, among the culprits. "Profit and quality of food are just too often in opposition to one another, and therefore profit-driven food is not quality food," said one college professor. After all, food is basic to survival, and profiteers should not be allowed to enrich themselves on the empty stomachs of others.
The answer, many said, was to have the BFD take over the coops' role. With a single, centralized government-run coop, the paperwork would be less burdensome. Costs could be controlled in a less haphazard and arbitrary manner. With the profit motive eliminated, prices would stop rising. Most importantly, everyone would be a member, so no one would face the catastrophic burden of out-of-pocket grocery expenses.
Others thought just the reverse. Take some groceries out of the system. Let people buy FCOJ from whoever might want to sell it to them; let milk be shipped from wherever it might come from. Make people pay at least some of the true cost of groceries, so they could actually see the prices that they were directly (or indirectly) paying, and make more prudent and rational choices about what to eat. Let the grocers compete on price and not just on the ability to game the coop monitors. And for those who truly could not afford enough food, have the BFD give them vouchers they could use at the grocery store. But generally, people with antiquated ideas like that were dismissed as "miserable, carping, retromingent vigilantes."
Finally, a compromise was struck. Everyone would be required to join a coop, and coops could not turn anyone away. Coops would be subsidized, to some extent, to compensate for the added costs. Prime Minister O'Meara declared it a good compromise, one that would help make groceries more affordable.
Stossel already did a riff on this, as did http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo176.html and http://www.cascadepolicy.org/pdf/health_ss/2002_26.pdf and http://dailycapitalist.com/2009/05/26/single-payer-system/ etc., etc.
But they were preaching to the faithful. I hope mine makes a little sense to the other side of the pew.
Decades ago, the nation of Vespucciland was embroiled in a big war and Parliament decreed that business owners could not raise prices nor wages and salaries. But they still had to compete for workers, so some tried to upgrade the workplace decor and others installed bowling alleys next to the cafeterias. But some hit on the idea of providing their workers with a unique benefit - membership in a food coop. Food coops worked great. The employers used it to compete for workers and got a tax deduction for the expense. The workers (initially) got the perk for free and only had to pay a fraction of their grocery bills.
After the war ended, the system was so pervasive and popular that no employer dared drop the coverage. Workers' unions fought to make the terms of coop membership more beneficial to the workers - lower copays, for example. Initially aimed at "staple" food items, eventually coops entitled members to get the finest cuts of steak and fancy pastries, as well. The grocery stores and farmers loved the food coop system, too, for several reasons. They were guaranteed payment, and they no longer got arguments about the cost of the food. People were wandering through grocery stores, picking up whatever they wanted, and not looking at the prices. In fact, they couldn't look at the prices because there were no price stickers. A few would ask, but grocers would look at them like they were crazy and say "why do you need to know? The coop will cover it."
But the coop administrators had to pass the costs back to the employers, who were not happy about it. So coops started competed among each other to rein in the ever-increasing costs, but it wasn't easy. They had to hire small armies of analysts to track the prices grocers and farmers were charging, to set limits that were meaningful enough to save costs but weren't so onerous that coop members would leave and join a different coop. In the meantime, grocers and farmers educated themselves on all the coop rules, and learned the best ways to label and price food items to their advantage.
Parliament "helped" too. They created numerous laws, and the Bureau of Food and Drugs to administer them. Grocers were required to take years of training to become licensed, and anyone practicing grocery without a license faced jail time. Standards were enforced. For example, only fresh-squeezed orange juice could be sold; frozen concentrate was banned. Bread had to be whole grain and could not be more than one day old. Milk had to come from a farm within 20 miles and could only be sold by the gallon. Hamburger had to be 99% lean, ground in specialized central facilities, and shipped to stores in special trucks. This was all done in the name of protecting the consumer. To prevent costly duplication, grocery stores could only be opened where there was a demonstrable community need.
The cost of coop membership kept rising, but the alternative was worse. If you lost your job, you lost your coop membership. And without a job, it was very hard to get into a coop, especially if you were overweight or had teenagers in your family. The small fraction of people without coop membership saw the true price of food - and it was horrendous. A gallon of milk cost $25; a loaf of bread $10; a pound of hamburger $35. But as fast as prices went up, the cost of coop membership went up even faster. Coop members, when they still had a choice, chose the better cuts of meat, the better brands of bread, the tastier snacks, the more exotic coffee. And the grocers and farmers responded by giving them ever more expensive delicacies to choose from.
But grocers and farmers were struggling, too, under the crushing weight of paperwork that had to be filled out to satisfy both the BFD and the many coops' different monitoring requirements. To cut costs, grocers cut back on service and customers found they had to wait in longer lines at the deli counter and had to phone in their bakery orders ahead of time.
Generally, the coops came to be despised by members and grocers alike, because no one was happy with the system.
The fraction of GNP devoted to groceries eventually got so high, it was regarded as a crisis and Parliament debated what to do about it. Many people said it was the fault of the coops, or, more specifically, the evil coop administrators who manipulated the system to make a profit. Others included the grocers and farmers, who also made profits, among the culprits. "Profit and quality of food are just too often in opposition to one another, and therefore profit-driven food is not quality food," said one college professor. After all, food is basic to survival, and profiteers should not be allowed to enrich themselves on the empty stomachs of others.
The answer, many said, was to have the BFD take over the coops' role. With a single, centralized government-run coop, the paperwork would be less burdensome. Costs could be controlled in a less haphazard and arbitrary manner. With the profit motive eliminated, prices would stop rising. Most importantly, everyone would be a member, so no one would face the catastrophic burden of out-of-pocket grocery expenses.
Others thought just the reverse. Take some groceries out of the system. Let people buy FCOJ from whoever might want to sell it to them; let milk be shipped from wherever it might come from. Make people pay at least some of the true cost of groceries, so they could actually see the prices that they were directly (or indirectly) paying, and make more prudent and rational choices about what to eat. Let the grocers compete on price and not just on the ability to game the coop monitors. And for those who truly could not afford enough food, have the BFD give them vouchers they could use at the grocery store. But generally, people with antiquated ideas like that were dismissed as "miserable, carping, retromingent vigilantes."
Finally, a compromise was struck. Everyone would be required to join a coop, and coops could not turn anyone away. Coops would be subsidized, to some extent, to compensate for the added costs. Prime Minister O'Meara declared it a good compromise, one that would help make groceries more affordable.