Disentangling the essence of a Hollywood film from its artistic appeal can illuminate the subtle intentions of motion picture producers and the enduring cultural paradigms they perpetuate. A striking example is “Elysium,” which blends stunning visuals and captivating effects with Hollywood’s recurring focus on class disparity, depicting a stark divide between the rich and the poor pushed to its most dramatic extreme.
The year is 2154. The very affluent live on an artificial space station outside Earth, peering through their powerful telescopes at the poor, who are nastily confined on an overpopulated and environmentally-ruined Blue Planet. I’m not sure if it’s mentioned, but I can’t help but wonder what the ratio of the affluent to the struggling might be—for research purposes, of course.
What’s conceptually interesting for the theme of this article is a device that only rich people have access to, around which the main narrative thread revolves. This machine—clearly designed to be evocative of the disparities in access to healthcare—is the epitome of human advancement in medical research: a pod that can heal its user of any disease or injury they might have.
Notwithstanding what Left-liberals might wish, granting equal access to every type of medical treatment is unfeasible and counterproductive. First of all, prices of various types of medical treatments range from a few bucks (think generic pills) to hundreds of thousands of dollars (gene therapy). In the intermediate range we might find there are hundreds of potential therapeutic devices and procedures; granting free access to them would, at least theoretically, require a wealth redistribution of significant proportions.
While this might be ethically acceptable for proponents of full and equal access to healthcare, what they might forget is that laws of economics transcend mere beliefs. “Soaking the rich” and taxing the very producers of a given economy destroy the profit motive and obliterate production and innovation.
Equalizing access to goods and services without regard to incentives and productivity tends to shrink the overall “economic pie” until very little remains. This universal principle underpins the practice of socialism, which has repeatedly led to economic collapse. This has been proven time and again, most recently by Venezuela’s experience, where extensive government control and welfare programs devastated the economy and led to severe shortages and hyperinflation.
Surely, economic romanticists might deliberate, the tax burden could only be increased for the extra wealthy, with minimal consequences; if one gives way to globalist tendencies, the burden could be applied internationally—to prevent wealth exodus. Accordingly, they argue, the financial power of the rich will be mitigated, and an egalitarian access to products will ensue. Murray Rothbard rightly saw this idea at its face value. Writing in For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, he handled the issue conclusively:
…soaking the rich would have disastrous effects, not just for the rich but for the poor and middle classes themselves. For it is the rich who provide a proportionately greater amount of saving, investment capital, entrepreneurial foresight, and financing of technological innovation that has brought the United States to by far the highest standard of living—for the mass of the people—of any country in history. Soaking the rich would not only be profoundly immoral, it would drastically penalize the very virtues: thrift, business foresight, and investment, that have brought about our remarkable standard of living. It would truly be killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Rothbard’s recognition of the vital role the wealthy play in the economy is essential. The rich, like anyone else, strive to maximize the potential of their financial resources. As entrepreneurs, they compete to provide products and services to their customers. Yet, the affluent enjoy greater access to niche markets, both as consumers and investors. In turn, this drives resources to advanced fields and fosters innovation, granting access to previously unavailable techniques and products. As demand for these specialized products grows, the larger potential profits attract more investors, innovators, and producers. Their profit-driven endeavors promote the further optimization of the niche goods while enhancing production efficiency, resulting in substantial price decreases that, ultimately, make these products more accessible to everyone.
This logic extends to many everyday products we often take for granted—such as color TVs, radios, automobiles, and smartphones. Features like brake boosters, airbags, and microprocessors have reached their current level of innovation largely because pioneers invested significant resources, supported by consumers who paid extra or wealthier buyers willing to take advantage of the latest cutting-edge advancements.
Moving to the health department, we easily see there is no shortage of similar examples. It took about a century of experimentation for the inventors of Pears soap to perfect their unique recipe. Their pioneering soap was originally sold mostly to London’s wealthy elite, gradually displacing the harsh soaps previously available. Their stride remains important today—the core formula they developed continues to be used in the soap’s modern production.
Around the start of the twentieth century, X-ray machines were not only hazardous but also costly (priced at about $500, or around $20,000 adjusted for inflation in today’s money) and were typically found in large, well-funded clinics, limiting access for less affluent patients. Similarly, in the 1980s, advanced medical technologies such as CT scanners, insulin pumps, and dental implants were mostly available in top-tier medical facilities, serving the better-off. Today, the prices of these technologies have decreased while their quality and accessibility have improved significantly.
A prominent example of a wealthy individual investing in innovative health technologies is Bryan Johnson, an entrepreneur who has become an anti-aging pioneer. He allocates over $2 million annually to his personal health program, which involves frequent and highly sophisticated medical testing to monitor and enhance his body’s condition. Though this big investment has significantly cut his wealth, it’s a clear example of how its benefits “spill over.” For example, it enables developers of new health technologies to increase R&D spending and explore new possibilities in understanding pathological processes.
If the development and universal access of a hypothetical all-healing device are to be prevented, then—to invoke the famous Lockean triplet—the only true obstacles are, concomitantly, barriers to life, liberty, and property.
