One of the most tossed-around phrases of Jesuit idealism is “a preferential option for the poor.” Its applications are depicted in the case of health care and socialized medicine.
Assume that person “X” develops a cure for cancer. X releases the medication, and he is capable of producing only 100 doses.
Under a free market system, the millions of afflicted patients would bid the price up so that only the wealthiest of cancer victims would have access to the cure.
“Injustice,” would be screamed from the altars and lips of Jesuits all over. Rich people deserve no greater right to life than the poor, and thus the preferential option should step in.
Whether it be by moral obligation or by governmental mandate, the Jesuits care not.
Resources from person X (all rich people and society as a whole) should be redistributed, through taxes, to provide for the poorer cancer victims. This allegedly would help to achieve social justice.
This solution, aside from committing the simple injustice of theft, also would be responsible for millions of lives lost thanks to inefficient market intervention.
Under the original example, in which X was allowed to charge high prices in response to his limited supply and the markets high demands, mechanisms within the free market would adjust to lead toward equilibrium and more suitable provisions for the needs and demands of society.
The initial round of X’s high profits could be reinvested in his production, increasing his capacity in his next round of sales. Thus, more people would have access to his life-saving medicine.
This reinvestment is typical in new business ventures, especially profitable ones. Also, the high profits would attract entrepreneurs from other industries into the market for cancer medication, contributing to more satisfied customers and less death.
Finally, all of these increases in the supply would decrease the price to the final consumers. Thus, the medication not only would be available to more cancer patients overall but more patients in lower income brackets.
The socialized medical services referred to by Jesuits and liberals alike would result in stagnant markets, minimal product innovation and long waiting periods for medical services that exist in countries such as Canada.
During all of this, thousands, maybe even millions of people die and suffer; yet this supposedly is the morally superior solution?
The finger of blame should point back at the face of the Jesuits or the Democrats and say, “Shame on you. You want poverty, death, sickness, and starvation. You want to arbitrarily control the aspects of distribution through bureaucracies. You want the power and authority to dictate the exchange process between consenting individual adults. You don’t want to help the poor. You want to overpower the poor. You want them to depend on you. You want to control them. The guise of faith has masked your intentions for too long. Intentions mean nothing when innocent victims are subject to such serious consequences.”
~ Editor’s Note: The opinions of this column do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Maroon.
