About
Learn More about our progressive online community for the Granite State.

Create an account today (it's free and easy) and get started!
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


The Masthead
Managing Editors


Jennifer Daler

Contributing Writers
elwood
Mike Hoefer
susanthe
William Tucker

ActBlue Hampshire

The Roll, Etc.
Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch, finch, beech
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
Tomorrow's Progressives

Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Primary Wire
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch

Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
Ann McLane Kuster
John Lynch
Jennifer Daler

ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

McCain v. McCain: The Role of Increased Government Regulation in an Unrestrained Free Market

by: Quality Counts

Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 19:12:11 PM EDT


John McCain and Sarah Palin have spent much of the past few weeks attacking the greedy, corrupt villains behind the collapse of our financial markets.  And there truly were some pretty shady characters involved in some very questionable financial dealings.  But a crisis of this magnitude never is the fault of just a few rotten apples.  What McCain and Palin can't seem to grasp is that environmental factors can turn honorable people into criminals and people of questionable morality into models of probity.

Shade the truth just a bit, do this over and over again, and the possibility of weapons of mass destruction becomes a certainty.  Create financial instruments that no one really understands, add a little more risk with each derivative, and all of a sudden you've inoculated the entire financial system with a virulent strain of almost worthless paper.  But John McCain and Sarah Palin are as wedded to their mistaken notion of free market economics as George Bush is to his war in Iraq.  Out of political necessity, McCain and Palin may try to sound like they understand the need for government referees at a free market football game, but in the end they simply can't surrender their favorite theory to some stubborn little facts.

Quality Counts :: McCain v. McCain: The Role of Increased Government Regulation in an Unrestrained Free Market

In McCain's own words recently released in Contingencies:

"Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.  Consumer-friendly insurance policies will be more available and affordable when there is greater competition among insurers on a level playing field."

Didn't Wall Street, free from excessive government regulation, recently offer consumers "more choices of innovative products" in the form of derivatives?  Warren Buffet warned us in 2002:  

"I view derivatives as time bombs, both for the parties that deal in them and the economic system. . . . The derivatives genie is now well out of the bottle, and these instruments will almost certainly multiply in variety and number until some event makes their toxicity clear. Central banks and governments have so far found no effective way to control, or even monitor, the risks posed by these contracts. In my view, derivatives are financial weapons of mass destruction, carrying dangers that, while now latent, are potentially lethal."
But what does Warren Buffet know about investment?

In a 2007 speech, Senator Barack Obama stated:

"Markets can't thrive without the trust of investors and the public. At a most basic level, capital markets work by steering capital to the place where it is most productive. Without transparency, that cannot happen. If the information is flawed, if there is fraud, or if the risks facing financial institutions are not fully disclosed, people stop investing because they fear they're being had. When the public trust is abused badly enough, it can bring financial markets to their knees. We all suffer when we do not ensure that markets are transparent, open and honest."
But what does a naïve junior Senator from Illinois know about markets?

Factcheck.org may be correct that McCain was linking only a single provision of his health reform package to previous "reforms" in banking.  However, it is flat out wrong to suggest that this single provision to remove "excessive" state regulation of health insurance in order to increase competition isn't radical and potentially devastating.

The insurance industry has been heavily regulated for very good reasons.  It is almost impossible for average buyers to know how good their insurance is until something bad happens to them.  Then and only then, when they are most vulnerable, will they learn how much red tape stands between them and payment of their claim, or if what they thought was covered has been excluded in the fine print or by some arcane adjudication process.

Eliminating state regulation will permit health insurers to write policies in the state with the weakest consumer protections and then sell those policies to all Americans.  National enforcement would fall to the single state that approved the policies.  Free market competition may sound good in theory, but I think we've learned from bitter experiences to be skeptical of the wisdom of supposedly free markets where buyers have little information and limited power.

I don't know about you but I become very uneasy when someone promises to liberate my health insurance from "excessive" government regulation.  Unlike the senior who wants the government to "keep its hand off my Medicare," I think that government, for all its failings, has my interests at least as much at heart as private corporations that have a fiduciary duty to increase the wealth of their shareholders.

Senator Obama has laid out a carefully crafted evolutionary approach to health care reform that works conservatively to preserve what is good in our current system while repairing progressively what does not serve us well.  In contrast, John McCain and his running mate are proposing a health care reform package that is even more radical than the single-payer solution they attack with unremitting scorn.

I guess sometimes people behave like a mavericks simply because they do not fully understand the situation.  Which may be OK for Joe Sixpack, but it is a little frightening when applied to people who claim they are ready to lead the richest, most powerful nation on earth.

Poll
Do you favor McCain's plan to permit individuals to purchase health insurance across state lines?
Yes
No
Undecided

Results

Tags: , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Insurance isn't appropriate for something that's almost certain (0.00 / 0)
to happen.  Even if an individual never suffers a serious injury of disease, there are certain prophylactic measures which society wants/needs to be applied.  So, society as a whole should provide/pay.

Moreover, the market system isn't appropriate for the delivery of goods and services the recipient would rather not have, but needs.  That's because the market is geared towards satisfying wants--a positive impulse, not the choice of the lesser of two negatives.
And then there's the complication that the profit motive aims to increase volume and repeat purchase--the exact opposite of what's considered a successful result in the medical profession, healthy individuals that don't need any more care.

Finally, and this seems to be a problem in all kinds of endeavors, the redirection of risk to the individual represents the demise of economies of scale, as well as the expertise that can be applied when the scale is sufficiently large.  Most health care used to be household based and many people, especially women and children died early because they didn't have the skills to keep themselves alive.  Having to accumulate enough money and decide without any prior experience who's going to provide the best care for an illness or injury at the most reasonable price hardly seems like an improvement.  More like moving backwards.  



Connect with BH
     
Blue Hampshire Blog on Facebook
Powered by: SoapBlox