In as little as six months, Washington has gone from Brother Love’s Travelin’ Salvation Show to Hotel California. Why are they trying to rush through legislation that no one knows what it says or means to individiuals like you and me?
sandreAugust 19, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Why???
Isn’t that what they always do?
What’s the point of reading the bill, asks a supporter of the bill in congress.
Obama studied Hillary’s mistakes at length. Her proposal was specific and she presented those specifics to the public, which promptly rejected the proposal and voted in a bunch of republicans.
He decided that he needed to use his popularity to ram it down the public’s throat before the population knew what hit it. He’s not entirely wrong – a popular president can get almost anything he wants. Unfortunately for him (and fortunately for Americans), he blew a lot of political capital early on by ballooning the deficit with his porkulus bill and crap and trade. This bill is so awful that it dragged Obama’s popularity down even further and the vulnerable members of his party are a lot less willing to stick their necks out for a president falling in popularity.
The double standard of the press is astounding. There is nobody’s grandma they’re unwilling to sell down the river to hand a political victory to their messiah. No matter the cost.
From one Russian (half) Jew to another, I like the book nobody likes. It’s hard to read though. Some of the words are cut off by the left margin even when the page is full extended across the screen. I have a private question for you. If you wish, contact me at methinks76@gmail.com
I don’t know how to follow that link. I was just giving you my email address so that you can email me from your own email if you wanted. I look forward to your email.
TomAugust 20, 2009 at 4:35 pm
I hate the health care reform debate. I feel utterly confused after any pundit speaks.
My healthy Hayekian instinct suggests any designed ‘system’ for ‘fixing’ the provision of health care in this country will have unintended fiscal and clinical consequences that outweigh their benefits. Other than that, I’m lost. I am guilty of switching off entirely.
But one question burns regardless.
Imagine we had entirely private health insurance market – no Medicare or Medicaid. If I live to be sixty-five, I will probably have a personal and/or family history that indicates a strong probability of developing an expensive chronic condition. I would wager that is true of almost all sixty-five year olds.
So here is my question: which insurer in their right mind would take on my risk?
I suspect none. Once philanthropy and savings were exhausted, I would surely risk a painful life and preventable death.
Do I want this? Does anyone? Isn’t “socialized” medicine for older people an unpleasant moral necessity for our wealthy society? Please note I am deeply suspicious of most arguments cast in moral terms in discussions of politics and economics. I ask these questions guardedly.
Share
{ 12 comments }
In as little as six months, Washington has gone from Brother Love’s Travelin’ Salvation Show to Hotel California. Why are they trying to rush through legislation that no one knows what it says or means to individiuals like you and me?
Why???
Isn’t that what they always do?
What’s the point of reading the bill, asks a supporter of the bill in congress.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACbwND52rrw
They were hoping to get it through before many found out what was going down.
Obama studied Hillary’s mistakes at length. Her proposal was specific and she presented those specifics to the public, which promptly rejected the proposal and voted in a bunch of republicans.
He decided that he needed to use his popularity to ram it down the public’s throat before the population knew what hit it. He’s not entirely wrong – a popular president can get almost anything he wants. Unfortunately for him (and fortunately for Americans), he blew a lot of political capital early on by ballooning the deficit with his porkulus bill and crap and trade. This bill is so awful that it dragged Obama’s popularity down even further and the vulnerable members of his party are a lot less willing to stick their necks out for a president falling in popularity.
The double standard of the press is astounding. There is nobody’s grandma they’re unwilling to sell down the river to hand a political victory to their messiah. No matter the cost.
Jonah Golberg is one of the greatest political commentators of all time, not an economist, unfortunately, but still great.
dg lesvic,
From one Russian (half) Jew to another, I like the book nobody likes. It’s hard to read though. Some of the words are cut off by the left margin even when the page is full extended across the screen. I have a private question for you. If you wish, contact me at methinks76@gmail.com
Methinks,
I’m trying to correct that problem of readability with the book.
I will be following up with you by e mail.
And, hey, half a Jew is better than none at all, I think.
Methinks,
Tried to follow your e mail link, but I’m too old I’m afraid and tech unsavvy.
don’t try to follow the email link. Just type it into the ‘To:’ part of your email client. Or publish your email address, so Methinks can contact you.
dg,
I don’t know how to follow that link. I was just giving you my email address so that you can email me from your own email if you wanted. I look forward to your email.
I hate the health care reform debate. I feel utterly confused after any pundit speaks.
My healthy Hayekian instinct suggests any designed ‘system’ for ‘fixing’ the provision of health care in this country will have unintended fiscal and clinical consequences that outweigh their benefits. Other than that, I’m lost. I am guilty of switching off entirely.
But one question burns regardless.
Imagine we had entirely private health insurance market – no Medicare or Medicaid. If I live to be sixty-five, I will probably have a personal and/or family history that indicates a strong probability of developing an expensive chronic condition. I would wager that is true of almost all sixty-five year olds.
So here is my question: which insurer in their right mind would take on my risk?
I suspect none. Once philanthropy and savings were exhausted, I would surely risk a painful life and preventable death.
Do I want this? Does anyone? Isn’t “socialized” medicine for older people an unpleasant moral necessity for our wealthy society? Please note I am deeply suspicious of most arguments cast in moral terms in discussions of politics and economics. I ask these questions guardedly.
Question to the Cafe Hayek community.
Can anyone point me to an Austrian or Free Market analysis of Obamacare?
What I am not looking for:
- how government health care creates problems, or
- how free-market solutions actually work better.
but an analysis of this specific/particular piece of legislation or the propositions being thrown about as it is being written in the house/senate.
Thanks