Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (10348)	10/9/2009 9:44:16 AM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Respond to of 42652

The "marketplace" for insurance. It does back off of the federally run version from the House bill to something more private so relative to the House version it leans free market. But it's hardly free market. Relative to the status quo it's not at all free market. It's just less command and control that the earlier proposal.

To: Road Walker who wrote (10348)	10/14/2009 12:40:02 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

If it allows sales across state lines than that specific aspect would be a move to a more free market system. But the marketplace as a whole is a creation of the government not the free market, and the the mandates and regulations about buying insurance, and what it will include is a move towards more command and control. By Brooks column I assume you mean The Baucus Conundrum nytimes.com I assume your supporting his point about the "regulated marketplace" and "The Wyden approach". I've responded above to the markeplace point, and Brooks says of the Wyden plan - "But barring a legislative miracle, the Wyden approach was effectively killed in committee last week." I agree with Brooks when he says ------------------ "The Baucus bill centralizes power, in contrast to the free choice approach, which decentralizes it. The Baucus approach aims to reduce costs, expand coverage and improve efficiency by empowering regulators to write a better set of rules. It aims to rationalize the current system from the top down. This approach has many weaknesses. It entrenches a flawed system. It creates greater uniformity and rigidity. It redistributes income from the politically disorganized young to the politically organized old. It squeezes people into a Rube Goldberg complex of bureaucracies based on their income level. It will impose huge costs on people as they rise up the income ladder, distorting the whole economy. The biggest problem is that it will retard innovation. Top-down systems just don’t innovate well, no matter how many Innovation Centers you put in the Department of Health and Human Services. The bill will retard innovation by using monopoly power to squeeze costs. It will also retard innovation by directing resources toward current care (and current voters) and away from future technologies and future beneficiaries." ---------- But not when he says "but the authors have taken fiscal responsibility seriously." It may indeed be more fiscally responsible then some of the other bills, but that's like calling a rhino a small animal since its not the size of a large elephant. He points out that "They’ve earned that good score from the Congressional Budget Office." But that's pretty meaningless IMO. The bill games the CBO's system. Its set up more to earn a good CBO score then to actually do much to contain spending. The tax increases happen before the program starts spending anything, the CBO only looks over a 10 year period, so if you start the taxes 3 or 4 years before you start spending (and if the program's spending doesn't get up to fully speed right away, which this one's does not) then its easy to get a good, but meaningless CBO score. Also the program includes ways to get a better score that will probably not happen, or if they happen will probably not be durable. This is getting to long so I'll extend on that last point in my next post.