Megan McArdle is, in Fact, Wrong About Everything

Congratulations to Jonathan Chait for demonstrating that this reliable axiom still holds true:



Yup, Chait's right; it's just what she titled her 2009 column. But she didn't really mean it, did she? Well, yeah:

Basically, for me, it all boils down to public choice theory. Once we've got a comprehensive national health care plan, what are the government's incentives? I think they're bad, for the same reason the TSA is bad. I'm afraid that instead of Security Theater, we'll get Health Care Theater, where the government goes to elaborate lengths to convince us that we're getting the best possible health care, without actually providing it.

***
So in the absence of a robust private US market, my assumption is that the government will focus on the apparent at the expense of the hard-to-measure. Innovation benefits future constituents who aren't voting now. Producing it is very expensive. On the other hand, cutting costs pleases voters this instant.

***
The other major reason that I am against national health care is the increasing license it gives elites to wrap their claws around every aspect of everyone's life. Look at the uptick in stories on obesity in the context of health care reform. Fat people are a problem! They're killing themselves, and our budget! We must stop them! And what if people won't do it voluntarily? Because let's face it, so far, they won't.

McArdle, in short, feels that Chait has defamed her by attributing to her views that she has publicly espoused in a column under her own byline.

Awesome. She wins the "Billy" for January: