http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/YeasandNays/Elizabeth_Edwards_not_that_fond_of_Obamas_health_care_plan.html


This line sums up how most dems think. When talking about McCains healthcare plan.

McCain’s plan fails in all important areas by leaving the decision-making process up to individuals, who can frequently “make stupid economics decisions.”

10/28/2008 4:17:02 PM

In the context of healthcare, individuals indirectly do make horrible economic decisions regularly because their is no market transparency.

10/28/2008 4:18:55 PM

stupid individuals and their pesky freedom/decision-making ability.

10/28/2008 4:19:42 PM

While I didn't read the article, how can you say

Quote :

"McCain’s plan fails in all important areas by leaving the decision-making process up to individuals, who can frequently “make stupid economics decisions.”"

is off-base, given the fact that the main reason we're in a recession is because people made "stupid economics decisions"?

10/28/2008 4:20:22 PM

Quote :

"This line sums up how most dems think. When talking about McCains healthcare plan."

Though this sentiment offends me deeply I a beginning to make my piece with it on some issues.

Why?

Because in a democracy the will of the majority has the force of law. If there were more constitutional protections for property the notion of letting anyone do as they pleased with their money might be more tenable.

However, what happens when large groups of people fail miserably at important financial decisions? Is the government going to say "Oh Well - you put down your money, you take your chances"?

Not hardly. There will be intervention to correct the problem. In some cases, for example the bailout, correcting the problem via government is actually the most cost effective solution after the fact. Though, preventing people from taking on risk would have been far far more effective.


For a long time I was a big proponent of SS privatization. However, what do you think, in an election year, the government would be proposing now if we had had privatized social security. Do you really think we would say "Oh Well" to millions of people near retirement watching their savings blowup?


No, I think it is not realistic to expect a democracy to function without limiting the risks people are allowed to take. The political process itself creates externalities that imply that the risks to one group are risks to the whole.

10/28/2008 4:25:52 PM

Again I quote:

Quote :

" The free market punishes irresponsibility. Government rewards it. -Harry Browne (1996 & 2000 Libertarian Party Presidential candidate) "

10/28/2008 4:32:30 PM

Quote :

"given the fact that the main reason we're in a recession is because people made "stupid economics decisions"? "

YOu left out, WITH OTHER PEOPLES MONEY, part. That is exactly what happens when someone else is paying/making your healthcare decisions for you Stein. You become a passive participant in your own healthcare, which feeds the idea that its someone elses job to take care of you.

So if you hate what the govt did with housing, you are going to love what it does with everyones healthcare.

Great quote xvang.

[Edited on October 28, 2008 at 4:40 PM. Reason : .]

10/28/2008 4:40:13 PM

That article says that Edwards believes healthcare is a right, I thought you were against this line of thinking?

10/28/2008 4:43:00 PM

I am. You do not have a right to anything that someone else has to provide you(against thier will).

Im also against the notion that McCains plan is bad because it leaves decisions up to individuals.(which btw was the point of this thread)

10/28/2008 4:44:51 PM

Obama's plan still leaves the decision up to individuals (which is what Elizabeth was complaining about).

Does Obama not think like a democrat?

10/28/2008 4:46:06 PM

Obama said it was a right too. (you might recall)

On the surface obamas plan leaves the decision to stay with your private ins. However, what happens to your private ins when Obama, mr. choice, forces private insurance companies to insure everyone and not be able to charge them more when assuming more risks? Or, you can just choose to take the govt sponsored health plan... hmmm. Way to think it through moron. Private ins wont be around much longer, leaving you with ONE choice.

Oh, gotta love NO incentive for buying it before you need it either. Its kinda like buying auto insurance AFTER the wreck. Hillary was right, if you do it, you have to force it. Otherwise, it wont work.

10/28/2008 4:50:07 PM

The majority of Americans think healthcare is a right, including a sizable chunk of self-identified Republicans.

The gov. could easily screw up healthcare, and hopefully they learn from their mistakes with Fannie/Freddie. But as long as the gov. doesn't run the program at a deficit (I have no reason to believe they'll do this, Fannie/Freddie didn't even operate this way), the private insurance companies can easily compete. Or do you not have faith in the free market anymore?

10/28/2008 4:54:19 PM

Look at the long term projections of medicare/medicaid and Social Security moron. Seriously.

THe majority of american favor free cars too, but its just as foolish.

10/28/2008 5:14:45 PM

Wait I don't get it..

Are Americans able to not "make stupid economic decisions" or are they foolish by favoring healthcare as a right and free cars?

10/28/2008 6:04:18 PM

^^ Uhh... that doesn't really have anything to do with this issue.

10/28/2008 6:05:18 PM

dp

[Edited on October 28, 2008 at 6:05 PM. Reason : ]

10/28/2008 6:05:18 PM

Quote :

"The gov. could easily screw up healthcare, and hopefully they learn from their mistakes with Fannie/Freddie. But as long as the gov. doesn't run the program at a deficit (I have no reason to believe they'll do this, Fannie/Freddie didn't even operate this way), the private insurance companies can easily compete. Or do you not have faith in the free market anymore?"

So how exactly would this "government-run program" not repeat the mistakes of Fannie and Freddie, yet still actually compete on the free market?

Would they be subject to the same regulations as private insurers? Would they be free of special government considerations - including low-cost or no-cost loan guarantees? Would they be free of an implicit or explicit government backing against failure?

And if all these conditions are met (which is highly dubious) - how would they be any different than a regular insurer, aside from operating as a not-for-profit?

10/28/2008 6:12:12 PM

moron

Quote :

" But as long as the gov. doesn't run the program at a deficit "

Looking at the long term affordablity of the CURRENT entitlements, and how they will consume the ENTIRE budget in a couple decades... yes it is the reason why adding another is VERY relevant.


Lavim, its the idea that the people are too stupid and govt knows best. That the reason why mccains healthcare plan is so bad bc its " leaving the decision-making process up to individuals"

However, she fails to see that individuals(in govt) are STILL making the decision...Its clear that she wants MORE power over individuals and thinks they should have less control over thier lives.

10/28/2008 6:13:51 PM