Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   What's right with Obama?   ( politico.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Obama, Gallup Organization, Nixonian  
•       •       •

655 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Sep 2013 at 7:27 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



35 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-18 07:31:49 AM  
Not Politico
 
2013-09-18 07:39:23 AM  

Lost Thought 00: Not Politico


ftfy
 
2013-09-18 07:40:23 AM  
So, Politico pulls a gimmick to get views and Fark.com falls right into the trap.

It's still Politico, folks.
 
2013-09-18 07:43:30 AM  

Aristocles: So, Politico pulls a gimmick to get views and Fark.com falls right into the trap.

It's still Politico, folks.



Politico learned this trick from the Politics tab, obviously.
 
2013-09-18 07:48:30 AM  
media.salon.com
 
2013-09-18 08:11:14 AM  
everything
 
2013-09-18 08:12:24 AM  
Nothing
 
2013-09-18 08:53:12 AM  
Recinding don't ask, don't tell?
 
2013-09-18 09:00:36 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: Recinding don't ask, don't tell?


And being the first sitting President to publicly state that he believes gays should have the right to marry, then the first President to be elected after having said that.  I also like the part where he killed bin laden.  He's not blowing me away with his epic awesomeness, but he deserves credit for a lot of good things.
 
2013-09-18 09:05:32 AM  
He manages to champion some neo-classical economic ideas like Obamacare and Cap and Trade. Unfortunately, he manages to damage them with incomplete or counterproductive implementation details. (Cap and Trade has too many carbon giveaways to special interests.)
 
2013-09-18 09:09:01 AM  

Ricardo Klement: He manages to champion some neo-classical economic ideas like Obamacare and Cap and Trade.


encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2013-09-18 09:17:31 AM  

Ricardo Klement: He manages to champion some neo-classical economic ideas like Obamacare and Cap and Trade. Unfortunately, he manages to damage them with incomplete or counterproductive implementation details. (Cap and Trade has too many carbon giveaways to special interests.)


Clearly that's why Congress blocked those measures.
 
2013-09-18 09:25:24 AM  

Aristocles: Ricardo Klement: He manages to champion some neo-classical economic ideas like Obamacare and Cap and Trade.

[encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 213x237]


Neo-classical economics doesn't reject the idea of internalizing externalities. Greg Mankiw of American Enterprise Institute suggests simply taxing CO2, but that cap and trade is a perfectly good solution. The problem with the cap and trade legislation as proposed involved too many exemptions.

As far as Obamacare, the economic issues created by otherwise highly productive people randomly removed from the labor force can really only be mitigated by government intervention. Once one determines that the cost of non-intervention is too high, you are going to have government intervention, and the question becomes what is the most neo-classical intervention available. The reason it was proposed by conservatives to begin with is that it solves the great dilemma that prevented it from being sold to anyone who wanted it. It makes a deal with insurance companies: cover high-risk people, and in exchange, we'll give you a bunch of low-risk people to balance it out. Effectively, that's not changing how the market works, just making sure everyone is in it. As far as interventions go, that one is pretty non-socialist and should end up with government spending less per capita tax dollars on health care than it does now.
 
2013-09-18 09:37:18 AM  

Ricardo Klement: Aristocles: Ricardo Klement: He manages to champion some neo-classical economic ideas like Obamacare and Cap and Trade.

[encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 213x237]

Neo-classical economics doesn't reject the idea of internalizing externalities. Greg Mankiw of American Enterprise Institute suggests simply taxing CO2, but that cap and trade is a perfectly good solution. The problem with the cap and trade legislation as proposed involved too many exemptions.

As far as Obamacare, the economic issues created by otherwise highly productive people randomly removed from the labor force can really only be mitigated by government intervention. Once one determines that the cost of non-intervention is too high, you are going to have government intervention, and the question becomes what is the most neo-classical intervention available. The reason it was proposed by conservatives to begin with is that it solves the great dilemma that prevented it from being sold to anyone who wanted it. It makes a deal with insurance companies: cover high-risk people, and in exchange, we'll give you a bunch of low-risk people to balance it out. Effectively, that's not changing how the market works, just making sure everyone is in it. As far as interventions go, that one is pretty non-socialist and should end up with government spending less per capita tax dollars on health care than it does now.


So you're arguing that neoclassical economics holds that the answer to bungled government manipulation of markets is... more government manipulation of markets?

Of course the effects of cap-and-trade and Obamacare can be subjected to neoclassical analyses, but that doesn't mean they're "neo-classical economic ideas." Neoclassical economics holds that market equilibrium is achieved when informed agents are free to choose how to best use their income. Artificial constrictions on the market, such as cap-and-trade, distort the market and hinder competition.
 
2013-09-18 10:04:03 AM  

Aristocles: So you're arguing that neoclassical economics holds that the answer to bungled government manipulation of markets is... more government manipulation of markets?

Of course the effects of cap-and-trade and Obamacare can be subjected to neoclassical analyses, but that doesn't mean they're "neo-classical economic ideas." Neoclassical economics holds that market equilibrium is achieved when informed agents are free to choose how to best use their income. Artificial constrictions on the market, such as cap-and-trade, distort the market and hinder competition.


Neo-classical economics believes in government internalizing externalities. Externalities happen when the cost of a transaction isn't captured by the price. For example, if an upstream town dumps all their pollution into the river, the downstream town has to pay more money to clean the water. The actions of the people upstream are costing other people money. That cost is not captured by the free market. Forcing the town to either process their waste first, or simply taxing them, is government interference, but it's also more reflective of the actual cost.

CO2 production is an externality that is not part of the transaction, yet is a cost imposed on everyone, including people not part of the transaction. There is more distortion without cap and trade than with it. Ergo, the neo-classical solution is either a tax or cap and trade.

Obamacare is more complex in its justifications but neo-classical in the implementation itself - it leaves the price structures largely in place, distorting them only to the degree it theoretically requires to achieve maximum coverage. Of all the solutions out there, it is the least socialist. And unless you're willing to subscribe to ERs being able to turn away poor people with grievous injuries without any treatment at all, the pre-Obamacare intervention is really about as bad as it gets and far worse than outright socializing it. In short, it you want the government to fark-up less, you want Obamacare more than you want no change at all.
 
2013-09-18 10:36:07 AM  

Ricardo Klement: Aristocles: So you're arguing that neoclassical economics holds that the answer to bungled government manipulation of markets is... more government manipulation of markets?

Of course the effects of cap-and-trade and Obamacare can be subjected to neoclassical analyses, but that doesn't mean they're "neo-classical economic ideas." Neoclassical economics holds that market equilibrium is achieved when informed agents are free to choose how to best use their income. Artificial constrictions on the market, such as cap-and-trade, distort the market and hinder competition.

Neo-classical economics believes in government internalizing externalities. Externalities happen when the cost of a transaction isn't captured by the price. For example, if an upstream town dumps all their pollution into the river, the downstream town has to pay more money to clean the water. The actions of the people upstream are costing other people money. That cost is not captured by the free market. Forcing the town to either process their waste first, or simply taxing them, is government interference, but it's also more reflective of the actual cost.

CO2 production is an externality that is not part of the transaction, yet is a cost imposed on everyone, including people not part of the transaction. There is more distortion without cap and trade than with it. Ergo, the neo-classical solution is either a tax or cap and trade.

Obamacare is more complex in its justifications but neo-classical in the implementation itself - it leaves the price structures largely in place, distorting them only to the degree it theoretically requires to achieve maximum coverage. Of all the solutions out there, it is the least socialist. And unless you're willing to subscribe to ERs being able to turn away poor people with grievous injuries without any treatment at all, the pre-Obamacare intervention is really about as bad as it gets and far worse than outright socializing it. In short, it you want the governme ...


Except the effect of cap and trade is less an internalization of externality and more a raising of entry cost. Add to that, as you previously mentioned, the exemptions, and the goals behind internalizing externalities are far from met.

As for Obamacare, if you're saying that it's a neoclassical idea because "it's the least socialist," I'm not convinced. What does neoclassical economics say about stuff like the individual mandate?
 
2013-09-18 11:13:18 AM  

Aristocles: Except the effect of cap and trade is less an internalization of externality and more a raising of entry cost. Add to that, as you previously mentioned, the exemptions, and the goals behind internalizing externalities are far from met.


Well, I said the exemptions are a problem. You can't cite broken implementations as proof the concept is bad. That's like saying the Bolton-Paul Defiant was a bad fighter, so fighters are bad. And it only raises the cost to entry to be what it should be. If upstream towns are forced to treat their waste water, that's raising the cost of entry to using the river, too. It's still internalizing the externality.

As for Obamacare, if you're saying that it's a neoclassical idea because "it's the least socialist," I'm not convinced. What does neoclassical economics say about stuff like the individual mandate?

The individual mandate was part of the Heritage idea to begin with. First off, you have to recognize another valid government intervention: the tragedy of the commons. The free market solution simply doesn't work. So you must have intervention. Now look at the current state of health care. You have to first admit that our assumptions are accepted:

1) We do not consider turning away poor people from the ER if they have bones sticking out or other disabling maladies so that they wander the streets shrieking in pain and making our lives generally uncomfortable.

2) The current system of, "Fine, we'll pay, now go away," is the single most expensive solution, as proven by comparing US *tax dollar* costs (and not even including the increased cost of service to the rest of us) to every other system on the planet.

3) Given the first two, what is the least disruptive/intrusive system a neoclassicist can come up with that solves both 1 and 2? No one has yet come up with a better solution than Obamacare, and the only way Obamacare can work is with the individual mandate.

Liberals believe, and not without reason, that single-payer is a better solution. Conservatives don't have a better solution. The best they've come up with is, in fact, a system that engages the insurance companies, forces them to give insurance to all at a capped rate, and establishes an individual mandate. That's why it's the most neo-classical/least socialist. Supply-side economists worked it out and this is what they arrived at.

Come up with something better, and you'll be rich.
 
2013-09-18 11:28:33 AM  

Ricardo Klement: 3) Given the first two, what is the least disruptive/intrusive system a neoclassicist can come up with that solves both 1 and 2?


What about opening up the marketplace and letting insurers compete for buyers? Or, removing some of the hurdles docs have to cross in order to practice medicine? Thus increasing the number of docs competing for work and lowering the cost. In this scenario, insurers could eventually become obsolete as the cost of care goes down.

Plus, tort reform measures to discourage frivolous malpractice suits.
 
2013-09-18 11:47:23 AM  

Aristocles: Ricardo Klement: 3) Given the first two, what is the least disruptive/intrusive system a neoclassicist can come up with that solves both 1 and 2?

What about opening up the marketplace and letting insurers compete for buyers?


That's what the exchanges are, and it doesn't solve the problem of people who can't get insurance.

Or, removing some of the hurdles docs have to cross in order to practice medicine? Thus increasing the number of docs competing for work and lowering the cost. In this scenario, insurers could eventually become obsolete as the cost of care goes down.

We tried that in the past and it didn't make things better, it made them worse. Snake-oil only encourages fraud and would be wholly counter-productive to:

Plus, tort reform measures to discourage frivolous malpractice suits.

That will have some modest effect on how expensive it is, but will generally be unable to fix the bulk of the problem. Frivolous malpractice claims are not the reason poor people cannot afford medical care.
 
2013-09-18 11:58:22 AM  

Ricardo Klement: Aristocles: Ricardo Klement: 3) Given the first two, what is the least disruptive/intrusive system a neoclassicist can come up with that solves both 1 and 2?

What about opening up the marketplace and letting insurers compete for buyers?

That's what the exchanges are, and it doesn't solve the problem of people who can't get insurance.


A "market" in which one is forced to participate is no market at all.

Also, if the exchanges don't solve the problem, then it's the wealth redistribution aspect of Obamacare that you think will be the most effective. So, I find it odd that you're calling it a neoclassical idea.
 
2013-09-18 12:15:53 PM  

Aristocles: A "market" in which one is forced to participate is no market at all.


A free market is a free market. If I tell Texas they can't make their oil state-owned, I'm forcing them into the free market. That doesn't turn the free market into something that isn't free. And again, some market interventions are necessary. Just like the tragedy of the commons. Neoclassicism doesn't say, "zero government regulation." It states that government regulation is only ok when it is less of a distortion of price than without it. In the case of health care, the market is better off with Obamacare than without.

Also, if the exchanges don't solve the problem, then it's the wealth redistribution aspect of Obamacare that you think will be the most effective. So, I find it odd that you're calling it a neoclassical idea.

It's the idea neoclassicists came up with to solve the problem. Again, once you accept the initial statements and are forced to work within them, what would a neoclassicist say is the right answer - and you get what the Heritage Foundation proposed: Obamacare (more or less) - including the individual mandate and government subsidy.

This is like saying that libertarians aren't libertarian at all, because they say, on the one hand, taxes are theft, but on the other, they say the government should tax people. Libertarians are not anarchists. They believe government has to do SOME things and for those things, government needs to tax. That doesn't suddenly mean you can say, "Wait - how is that a libertarian idea?"
 
2013-09-18 12:22:59 PM  

Aristocles: What about opening up the marketplace and letting insurers compete for buyers?


The biggest problem is that insurance operates off of a risk pool system. The larger your risk pool, the more efficient one can become, which is a system that outright prevents smaller startups from gaining much traction. If, say, a company wanted to locally compete with Wal-Mart, they could provide a better service which would justify the slightly higher prices and smaller selection. They would get fewer people, but still be able to survive. With insurance, you need a significant risk pool to mitigate the impact of certain unlucky individuals. You cannot compete without a critical mass of people subscribed that bellcurves the risk into an acceptable situation.

Then there's the secondary factor; the profit vector has little to do with the service provided. They make money off people having insurance and lose money off people using it. That drives them towards a business model that seeks to get as many people insured, then provide as little as possible in recompense.

And as a tertiary factor, the way our health care system is set up, insurance is nearly mandatory for a functional life (kind of like having a car is nearly mandatory for people who don't live near great public transit). So you have a constant demand, no real desire to provide the service, and no real vector to face new competition. It's a severely anti-capitalist industry.

Aristocles: Or, removing some of the hurdles docs have to cross in order to practice medicine?


There's a significant psychological problem with this; there are plenty of really great solutions that reduce the amount of busywork that requires a doctor and directs them to nurses or (I forget the term, but they're basically generalists that have less training than a doctor) but people always want the best when they're concerned about their health. People are extremely resistant to changing that habit, even when it makes perfect sense and helps everyone.
 
2013-09-18 12:29:15 PM  

sprawl15: I forget the term, but they're basically generalists that have less training than a doctor


Physician's Assistants
 
2013-09-18 12:50:43 PM  

Ricardo Klement: A free market is a free market.


But Obamacare doesn't simply add regulations, the mandate forces participation even for those that would have nothing to do with health insurance.

Ricardo Klement:
This is like saying that libertarians aren't libertarian at all, because they say, on the one hand, taxes are theft, but on the other, they say the government should tax people. Libertarians are not anarchists. They believe government has to do SOME things and for those things, government needs to tax. That doesn't suddenly mean you can say, "Wait - how is that a libertarian idea?"

But, at the same time, you're not permitted to say "Since libertarians believe that the governments can tax some things, government taxation is really a libertarian idea." Heritage is a conservative think tank that will explore any means to defeat political opponents. In the 90s it was Clintoncare, now those same neoclassical economists are against Obamacare. For example, see what Stuart Butler says about an individual mandate today.
 
2013-09-18 01:03:10 PM  

sprawl15: And as a tertiary factor, the way our health care system is set up, insurance is nearly mandatory for a functional life (kind of like having a car is nearly mandatory for people who don't live near great public transit). So you have a constant demand, no real desire to provide the service, and no real vector to face new competition. It's a severely anti-capitalist industry.


I'm 30 years old, never had a broken bone, never had a cavity, never need surgery and haven't been to a doctor of in 12 years (the exception is the eye doctor who I see once every two years so that I can buy more contact lens, optometrist office is connected to Costco, check up costs $80, two year supply of contacts something like $80-$100). So, I might be a bit biased when I hear talk of forcing people to buy health insurance. It goes against my strong belief in individual freedom.

sprawl15: There's a significant psychological problem with this; there are plenty of really great solutions that reduce the amount of busywork that requires a doctor and directs them to nurses or (I forget the term, but they're basically generalists that have less training than a doctor) but people always want the best when they're concerned about their health. People are extremely resistant to changing that habit, even when it makes perfect sense and helps everyone.


I'd welcome a convenient alternative.
 
2013-09-18 01:24:41 PM  

Aristocles: So, I might be a bit biased when I hear talk of forcing people to buy health insurance. It goes against my strong belief in individual freedom.


I'm in roughly the same boat, but the things that cost the most aren't the routine issues, it's unpredictables like if you discover you have cancer or if you get hit by a bus. Those are where not having insurance is utterly destructive, and free access to preventative care is one of the only ways to really mitigate those unpredictable costs - if you detect cancer early from a regular checkup, that's potentially millions of dollars of expenses that you save. I don't like pissing away my money for health insurance that I don't use, but I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

Aristocles: I'd welcome a convenient alternative.


The problem is that to even have an alternative that has any level of force from legislation, you need government involvement. There are plenty of alternatives, but when you burden them with a "the government should stay the fark out of the private sector" requirement you suddenly don't have any more.

Ultimately, I defer to practicality rather than philosophy; if the only way to rein in the ridiculous, rampant health care and health insurance industries (problems unique to our system) is through government intervention, then so be it. A guaranteed level of health care to cover catastrophes and preventative care would relegate the majority of the health care industry to a luxury good - something that addresses all of my concerns I listed above.
 
2013-09-18 01:38:49 PM  

sprawl15: Aristocles: So, I might be a bit biased when I hear talk of forcing people to buy health insurance. It goes against my strong belief in individual freedom.

I'm in roughly the same boat, but the things that cost the most aren't the routine issues, it's unpredictables like if you discover you have cancer or if you get hit by a bus. Those are where not having insurance is utterly destructive, and free access to preventative care is one of the only ways to really mitigate those unpredictable costs - if you detect cancer early from a regular checkup, that's potentially millions of dollars of expenses that you save. I don't like pissing away my money for health insurance that I don't use, but I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

Aristocles: I'd welcome a convenient alternative.

The problem is that to even have an alternative that has any level of force from legislation, you need government involvement. There are plenty of alternatives, but when you burden them with a "the government should stay the fark out of the private sector" requirement you suddenly don't have any more.

Ultimately, I defer to practicality rather than philosophy; if the only way to rein in the ridiculous, rampant health care and health insurance industries (problems unique to our system) is through government intervention, then so be it. A guaranteed level of health care to cover catastrophes and preventative care would relegate the majority of the health care industry to a luxury good - something that addresses all of my concerns I listed above.


We'll have to see how practical this thing turns out. As of now, the arguments for and against rely on theory and hypothesis.
 
2013-09-18 02:39:06 PM  
Honestly, I don't get the derangement. BO has been a pretty steady, thoughtful and responsive president. He's made many more good calls than bad and he certainly has the country's best interests in mind.

On most everything, he's been centrist, with a mix of populist appeal.

I just don't get the anti Obama derp. It's completely irrational.
 
2013-09-18 03:05:39 PM  

Aristocles: We'll have to see how practical this thing turns out. As of now, the arguments for and against rely on theory and hypothesis.


Well there's two levels of argument against it. One is the commonly thrown around talking point that government intervention in the health care market at all is Bad and the free market is Good therefore comma. That isn't really a direct criticism of the PPACA but more a conceptual criticism of government intervention. What I've said is more an attack on that line of thought.

Then there's the argument against it on a direct level - those have been levied at the actual mechanics of the legislation. Those could (and many probably are) be valid arguments. But the case here would be that a better solution could be more government intervention (for example, I'd like to see that basic level of health coverage as a benefit of being a citizen).

And many times, the two have been twisted for political gain. When the unions spoke out about Obamacare being bad, it was because they wanted more government intervention (the second type of complaint). Yet it was used by the right as evidence that even the unions thought it was too much government intervention (the first type). It's a clusterfark out there.
 
2013-09-18 03:31:38 PM  

Aristocles: Ricardo Klement: A free market is a free market.

But Obamacare doesn't simply add regulations, the mandate forces participation even for those that would have nothing to do with health insurance.


I hate to break it to you, but the Founders forced sailors to participate in a health care plan. They saw a solution that made sense then and it makes sense now. Neo-classical economics says, as a GENERALITY that government shouldn't intervene. But when it does, it must make do so in a way that least disrupts the free market. That's why Obamacare is a neo-classical intervention - once it became clear government had to intervene, it was the least disruptive.

Ricardo Klement:
This is like saying that libertarians aren't libertarian at all, because they say, on the one hand, taxes are theft, but on the other, they say the government should tax people. Libertarians are not anarchists. They believe government has to do SOME things and for those things, government needs to tax. That doesn't suddenly mean you can say, "Wait - how is that a libertarian idea?"

But, at the same time, you're not permitted to say "Since libertarians believe that the governments can tax some things, government taxation is really a libertarian idea." Heritage is a conservative think tank that will explore any means to defeat political opponents. In the 90s it was Clintoncare, now those same neoclassical economists are against Obamacare. For example, see what Stuart Butler says about an individual mandate today.


Note that Heritage's claim that it was a response to Clintoncare doesn't stand up to scrutiny - it predates Clinton's nomination, much less election to the presidency. And, frankly, they didn't think that claim the whole way through, because it makes it look like Obama accepted the compromise and now Republicans are backing out of it.
 
2013-09-18 08:21:35 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Neo-classical economics says, as a GENERALITY that government shouldn't intervene. But when it does, it must make do so in a way that least disrupts the free market. That's why Obamacare is a neo-classical intervention


This is an astonishing statement, and if I didn't think otherwise, I'd suspect your were trolling. Especially in light of the fact that Obamacare hasn't been fully implemented and we have no real evidence as to it's effects.

Actually, scratch that, we have some evidence, namely, businesses are dropping coverage for their employees and cutting back hours in order to avoid coverage for full time employees.
 
2013-09-18 10:08:57 PM  

Aristocles: Ricardo Klement: Neo-classical economics says, as a GENERALITY that government shouldn't intervene. But when it does, it must make do so in a way that least disrupts the free market. That's why Obamacare is a neo-classical intervention

This is an astonishing statement, and if I didn't think otherwise, I'd suspect your were trolling. Especially in light of the fact that Obamacare hasn't been fully implemented and we have no real evidence as to it's effects.

Actually, scratch that, we have some evidence, namely, businesses are dropping coverage for their employees and cutting back hours in order to avoid coverage for full time employees.


Well, let's put it this way: neither socialists nor Keynesians came up with it.

Explain that.
 
2013-09-19 01:03:10 AM  
Nice try,. Fartmin.

No wait, I take that back:

Utter fail, trollmin.

F*ck yourself right off, this nonsense stopped me ponying up a fiver years ago.

Enjoy sucking your own tiny scrotes.
 
2013-09-19 08:01:39 AM  

Ricardo Klement: Aristocles: Ricardo Klement: Neo-classical economics says, as a GENERALITY that government shouldn't intervene. But when it does, it must make do so in a way that least disrupts the free market. That's why Obamacare is a neo-classical intervention

This is an astonishing statement, and if I didn't think otherwise, I'd suspect your were trolling. Especially in light of the fact that Obamacare hasn't been fully implemented and we have no real evidence as to it's effects.

Actually, scratch that, we have some evidence, namely, businesses are dropping coverage for their employees and cutting back hours in order to avoid coverage for full time employees.

Well, let's put it this way: neither socialists nor Keynesians came up with it.

Explain that.


As you know, the Heritage position on the matter has changed with the political wind. They're more political opportunists than ideologues. Butler has argued that the mandate on his plan was supposed to enforced with "a carrot rather than the stick" for, rather than imposing penalties for those who do not comply, those who did comply would receive tax breaks in order to alleviate the burden of the mandatory insurance.

/yes, I know that both the carrot and the stick result in the same outcome which is to impose a tax across the board.

Regarding the "Keynesian" comment, mainstream economics is a sort of hybrid of Neoclassical and Keynesian thought.

For a free market take on the matter, here's an article you might find interesting.:

The high cost and inequitable character of our medical care system are the direct result of our steady movement toward reliance on third-party payment. A cure requires reversing course, reprivatizing medical care by eliminating most third-party payment, and restoring the role of insurance to providing protection against major medical catastrophes.
The ideal way to do that would be to reverse past actions: repeal the tax exemption of employer-provided medical care; terminate Medicare and Medicaid; deregulate most insurance; and restrict the role of the government, preferably state and local rather than federal, to financing care for the hard cases. However, the vested interests that have grown up around the existing system, and the tyranny of the status quo, clearly make that solution not feasible politically. Yet it is worth stating the ideal as a guide to judging whether proposed incremental changes are in the right direction.


Now, Friedman openly admits that his "ideal" is not politically viable at this time (or all at once), but Obamacare or Heritagecare are certainly not moves in the free market direction.
 
2013-09-19 10:13:12 AM  

Aristocles: Ricardo Klement: Aristocles: Ricardo Klement: Neo-classical economics says, as a GENERALITY that government shouldn't intervene. But when it does, it must make do so in a way that least disrupts the free market. That's why Obamacare is a neo-classical intervention

This is an astonishing statement, and if I didn't think otherwise, I'd suspect your were trolling. Especially in light of the fact that Obamacare hasn't been fully implemented and we have no real evidence as to it's effects.

Actually, scratch that, we have some evidence, namely, businesses are dropping coverage for their employees and cutting back hours in order to avoid coverage for full time employees.

Well, let's put it this way: neither socialists nor Keynesians came up with it.

Explain that.

As you know, the Heritage position on the matter has changed with the political wind. They're more political opportunists than ideologues. Butler has argued that the mandate on his plan was supposed to enforced with "a carrot rather than the stick" for, rather than imposing penalties for those who do not comply, those who did comply would receive tax breaks in order to alleviate the burden of the mandatory insurance.

/yes, I know that both the carrot and the stick result in the same outcome which is to impose a tax across the board.

Regarding the "Keynesian" comment, mainstream economics is a sort of hybrid of Neoclassical and Keynesian thought.

For a free market take on the matter, here's an article you might find interesting.:

The high cost and inequitable character of our medical care system are the direct result of our steady movement toward reliance on third-party payment. A cure requires reversing course, reprivatizing medical care by eliminating most third-party payment, and restoring the role of insurance to providing protection against major medical catastrophes.
The ideal way to do that would be to reverse past actions: repeal the tax exemption of employer-provided medical care; terminate Medica ...


You're thinking about it the wrong way. You keep looking at the direction the vector arrow is pointing, and that's irrelevant here.

Visualize it this way:


Free Market    |-/-/-/-/-#/-*---/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/|    Socialist

-/=Systems that fail
#=Where we are now
*=Obamacare/Heritagecare/ACA

You are worried about right-ward movement. You should be more interested in what works, and pick the left-most thing in that set of working systems.
 
Displayed 35 of 35 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report