"Social Justice Is Often the Best Economics"

It feels strange reading Ted Kennedy’s new op-ed in Newsweek, entitled “The Cause of My Life.”  Granted, Kennedy’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee just passed its health care bill only a few days ago, which under normal circumstances might befit a victory lap.  But on the one hand, Kennedy seems distant from that accomplishment, as his own health issues compelled him to cheer from the sidelines as Chris Dodd guided the mark-up process to a safe landing.  On the other, health care reform is far from done – this is not the time for victory laps.

Luckily, Kennedy’s piece instead reads like a call to arms.

One part biography, one part policy, the most important thing to realize is that Kennedy has not at all taken his eye off the ball – it has not for him been about economic theory, or about pure ideology, or about the thrust and parry of partisan politics.  His focus is on who his legislation will help, and how quickly it can help them.
I encourage you to read the whole thing, but two passages in particular jump out.  The first is the phrase from which I took my title – “Social justice is often the best economics.”  It’s the topic sentence of a passage on long-term care, one aspect of health care that doesn’t get talked about enough, but one for which Kennedy has been a tireless champion.  But it could just as well be the topic sentence for the entire article.  Again and again, he writes about families he’s met – including his own – where the ideals of justice inevitable hit upon the rocks of economics.  He tells of his son, Teddy, participating in a clinical trial for cancer at Children’s Hospital in Boston:

During those many hours at the hospital, I came to know other parents whose children had been stricken with the same deadly disease. We all hoped that our child's life would be saved by this experimental treatment. Because we were part of a clinical trial, none of us paid for it. Then the trial was declared a success and terminated before some patients had completed their treatments. That meant families had to have insurance to cover the rest or pay for them out of pocket. Our family had the necessary resources as well as excellent insurance coverage. But other heartbroken parents pleaded with the doctors: What chance does my child have if I can only afford half of the prescribed treatments? Or two thirds? I've sold everything. I've mortgaged as much as possible. No parent should suffer that torment. Not in this country. Not in the richest country in the world.

The story from 1973, but it could just as soon happen today.  Even now, our nation’s latest attempt at universal health care is being caught up in economics – the economics of a family that lost their insurance when they lost their job, trying to choose between paying the bills and paying for medicine; the economics of bloated state budget deficits that seem to all too easily presage to health care and Medicaid cuts;  the economics of members of Congress who may be more concerned about making a tough vote to commit the money needed to fix a long-term problem than they are to the consequences of doing nothing.

Far too often, economics beat social justice in health care.  But that has only made the underlying economics of health care even worse.  How much better would our economic picture be if we’d just chosen social justice decades ago?

(Photo credit:  noktulo on Flickr.)