To: Lane3 who wrote (131598 ) 2/26/2010 12:42:48 PM From: JohnM Read Replies (2) | Respond to My point was quite specific, too. I was not arguing relative outcomes of the two approaches let alone the current approach. You brought that up. My very specific point was that the claim that the R's notion of of selling insurance across state lines was in the Senate bill was "a gross distortion." I notice that you did not challenge that point but, instead, changed the subject to comparing the R's proposal with the status quo. Having learned my lesson, I will not speculate <g> on why you might have ignored my point in favor of your change of subject. The reason I speculated about good regulation was an attempt to come up with some charitable explanation for why a smart person such as Obama or you might claim that insurance companies would inevitably end up operating out of states with scant regulation. One plausible explanation I came come up with was that those who so claim are making the assumption that robust regulation is inherently preferable. In summary, my previous post made two narrow points. One was that the claim that the R's proposal was in the Senate bill was bogus. The other was that a race to the bottom was so likely that the who notion was unacceptable. If you want to discuss the relative merits of the proposals we can do that. Just pointing out that that would be new business, outside the scope of my original comments.
