That is not the definition of economics. Try again. Besides that, you know that is not what is meant by believing in scarcity.

Hayek figured this out about a hundred years ago. Later, some folks took some “iffy” work from Keynes and warped it into a something that Hayek had already proved was baseless. Apparently, even Keynes claimed not to be a “Keynesian”, but don’t let that stop you.

If your goal is to reduce healthcare costs, then the best way to do it is to take all parts of it which can be left to the market and get the state out. The parts that cannot be free markets, should then be socialized or highly regulated. This in between stuff is the problem.

And furthermore, don’t call me ignorant.

When asked for obama’s accomplishments, he lists “beat hillary clinton” Whoa!

obama’s sponsored a bill to give about 1% of our total GNP to the turd world. Anybody think that’s a good idea? obama was dead wrong on the surge, as were all the Dems and has now adjusted his position and erased all his previous positions on this from his website. Anyone read “1984″? obama wants to create a civilian national defense force as “powerful as the us military” All I can say to that is “WTF?”

ftr mentions obama’s books. In one he says, paraphrasing “When the chips are down, I will stand with the Muslims.” Him and the CNDF I guess?

Here’s a book title that applies to this guy “Clear and Present Danger”

Medicare largely covers one class of individual – the elderly – and doesn’t cover as much as most other insurance plans. Those two factors alone would cut down on overhead.

KBW: People are typically locked into the insurance plans their companies choose.

That’s a good argument for divorcing insurance coverage from employment.

KBW: Buying insurance as an individual is almost impossible.

It can be done, but a big problem is that state mandates require ALL policies to cover so many conditions that many people who only need a barebones policy (basically to cover a catastrophe, such as cancer, or a stroke) are priced out of the market.

Here in Pennsylvania, state government recently required all insurance policies to cover autism-related services. This was enacted in response to pressure from parents of autistic children.

That’s nice, but why does a single, childless 20-something (who would be a member of the biggest demographic group of uninsured individuals) need to purchase a policy that provides coverage for autism-related services?

Imagine how expensive cars would be if the federal government demanded that every new car had the same equipment level and degree of engineering as a Mercedes E-Class?

KBW: The market choice is seldom made by the person which it will impact the most.

True, but I don’t see how nationalizing health care necessarily addresses this problem. The simple fact is that the big drivers of health care spending are care just before death, and preventable diseases and conditions.

Regarding the former – Is the federal government really going to tell people, “Look, your mother is not going to live that much longer, so this (physical therapy, dialysis, surgery – take your pick) is a waste of time, money and resources.”? Our medical system is still geared toward extending life as much as possible, which costs LOTS of money. I’ve read that one of the biggest expenses is caring for people in the last six months of their life.

As for the latter – Yes, people need to exercise more, eat healthier, not smoke and only drink alcohol in moderation. Make health care costs a government expense, and suddenly it will be in the government’s interest just how much we eat, exercise, drink, smoke, etc.

If people are okay with that – fine.

If not, they should not expect the government to pay for their health care expenses, and need to take a hard look at what is really driving health care costs.

Clearly that is the case in some industries but the answer is different in different markets. Medicare has far lower overhead than private insurance companies. The so called “free market” in the insurance industry is anything but. People are typically locked into the insurance plans their companies choose. Buying insurance as an individual is almost impossible. The market choice is seldom made by the person which it will impact the most. The quality of the product is really not known until it needs to be used and by that time it may be too late. As a result, we have lovely cases such as this.
http://www.tampabays10.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=84930&catid=8

Time to go back to reading more about how the Japanese can whip our asses when it comes to building cars.

One, winning primary elections and actually governing are two different things.

And, two, poll numbers will change dramatically over the next few months as both candidates debate, make gaffes and further define their positions.

faster_than_rabbit: He basically destroyed the entire free world and shredded whole sections of the Constitution — you can blame spineless Dems all you want for the FISA debacle — I personally do — but it’s the Bush Administration’s law. Bush and his so-called national security apparatus insisted on it.

Bush “destroyed the entire free world?”

Does he also sacrifice virgins and throw babies from skyscrapers?

Was he also the “real killer” of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman?

Step away from the keyboard, take a deep breath, and count to 10 before posting again, please.

You also might want to stop hanging around all of those people who were claiming that the Clintons murdered something like 1/10 of the population of Arkansas to get to the White House. They are having an effect on you…

faster_than_rabbit: Since nationalized health care existed in Britain prior to the formation of British Leyland, that is utterly irrelevant to the present situation.

It’s VERY relevant. The argument being put forth is that if we had nationalized health care, GM would be in better financial shape, primarily because the cost of providing health care for employees and retirees would be spread over the entire population, instead of only GM. GM, therefore, could use the money it pays for health care to develop, say, a better Cobalt.

If this were the case, then one would logically conclude that this would have helped British Leyland, a company that resembles GM in more ways than one. After all, British Leyland had a big advantage that GM doesn’t – it had the entire population of its native country bear the cost of providing health care to workers and retirees. And, by your own admission, nationalized health care in Great Britain was in place BEFORE British Leyland was formed.

For that matter, the U.S. already has nationalized health care for senior citizens – it’s called Medicare – and retired UAW members show no inclination to ditch their GM provided plan for Medicare. Why? Because it’s not nearly as generous as the GM plan.

KBW: To say that believing in scarcity is bad when it comes to economics is laughably ignorant.

It’s how the scarcity is handled. Do we allow the government to basically ration the resource (which is rationing by legislative mandate), or the free market to do it (which is rationing by price)?

You’re confusing your right-wing talking points. There isn’t a “present” vote classification in the US Senate. The “present” thing happened in Illinois, and it has to do with the way the state political body operates. It’s strictly pro forma, similar to the way the US Senate Majority Leader must switch his vote to No on legislation he actually supports if he wants to bring up the legislation for consideration at a different time.

I stand corrected. I was confusing Hillary’s “did not vote” record in the senate with Barack’s “present” vote in the Illinois legislature.

To your other points about Reagan, though:

Reagan is generally not praised as much for anything having to do with his “brilliant” campaign strategy. After all, he was running against Carter. Also, his own party didn’t really have a Hillary Clinton equivalant that he had to contend with (guys like G H W Bush, Dole, Connelly etc). Now that I think about it, none of them were as polarizing as Hillary so maybe it was something of an accomplishment to win the nomination.

Reagan is generally credited with running the Soviet Union into utter financial collapse while actually making friends (sort of) with Gorbechev at the same time. With his talk of “Star Wars” and the space arms race, and the protective missile defense shield etc. the Communist system would be overextended trying to keep up and thus, he helped to create the conditions for the transition to democracy in the early ’90’s.

Anyway, as for nationalized healthcare, when has government ever done anything as efficiently and cost effectively as the free market? We could talk about France’s wonderful healthcare system. It’s only 15 billion in the hole and let something like fifteen thousand people die in a heat wave. http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2003-09-25-france-heat_x.htm

The U.S. Government couldn’t even properly orchestrate an acceptable response to Katrina. That was due to “failures at every level” according to many analysts.

Or we could slam private firms like Enron, or MCI Worldcom, or Adelphia or a handful of others that have cooked the books. Of course their leadership is or was all under indictment (rightly so) because we have laws in place and the system is doing it’s job. Imagine if we actually held our elected officials to this level of scrutiny when it comes to oversight of our tax dollars.

“Governments tend not to solve problems, only to rearrange them.”

-Ronald Reagan

YAY FOR ROCKIN’ RONNY.

“Lets borrow a bunch of money from everybody. Absolutley Nothing Bad will happen.”

“Privatizing Everything will benefit everybody*”

“In the bible it says to destroy the Soviet Union.”

On another note, a goverment bailout of GM will delay the inevitable, we would just get another chrysler repeat. Let them die, they sealed their fate long ago.

Being a ultranationalist, Reagan would bail out GM. He slapped Import restrictions on foreign-built automobiles in the 1980’s, and had considerable sway over Mulrooney, which is why my aunt had to wait 4 months for a Tercel in ‘83. The auto years under Reagan the Great were Golden, GM built the best cars the universe had ever seen*. Who Could Forget The 6000(With it’s Glorious Varajet!) or the 86 Eldorado! AWESOME!

*Not actually true.

GM’s healthcare load per car is estimated to be ~$1500 per car. That’s larger than the profit margin on some small cars. Being able to make money on smaller cars is huge in today’s economy. It might not save GM, but it would certainly help.

BTW, economics is by definition the study of the allocation of scarce resources. http://www.conservative-resources.com/definition-of-economics.html
To say that believing in scarcity is bad when it comes to economics is laughably ignorant.

So what is so bad about a bailout? I mean is this an issue the needs a lot of attention? Is it not a good idea to observe and learn from, while being somewhat light about it? Is it something pressing, that is really detrimental to our well being? Is this not really just the tip of the iceberg? Is it not more important to look at the iceberg as a whole?

2. We have one of the most free markets in the world, but it is over regulated. As was pointed out, even today we have examples of how government interference ruins things. Enron would be a perfect example of that.

In fact his voting of “present” on more bills than any other senator in congress during his short stint there

You’re confusing your right-wing talking points. There isn’t a “present” vote classification in the US Senate. The “present” thing happened in Illinois, and it has to do with the way the state political body operates. It’s strictly pro forma, similar to the way the US Senate Majority Leader must switch his vote to No on legislation he actually supports if he wants to bring up the legislation for consideration at a different time.

jkross22:

Please give examples of Barak’s track record of success at anything. Has he run a business and met payroll? Has he managed a house full of teenagers? What has been his most significant success in business? Where has he been a leader? Has he rehab’d parts of the South side of Chicago?

He won election to the US Senate. He beat Hillary Rodham Clinton, which was the most difficult thing imaginable in the Democratic primary. Even his supporters thought he’d be VP, at best. He’s beating McCain in the polls. Show me where McCain is more successful by your terms. For that matter, show me where St. Reagan did any of those things.

And then explain to me why any of it matters. We’re talking about the presidency of the United States. W had ‘executive experience’. This seems to have helped him how? He basically destroyed the entire free world and shredded whole sections of the Constitution — you can blame spineless Dems all you want for the FISA debacle — I personally do — but it’s the Bush Administration’s law. Bush and his so-called national security apparatus insisted on it.

Meanwhile, John McCain doesn’t even bother to show up for work most of the time. This includes some bills where his vote could have changed the outcome.

I also note that you haven’t read Obamas books, or you would not be able to so casually dismiss them. People like to denigrate Obama on the basis that he’s merely an empty head who speaks well. I think such people are simply projecting their remembrance of Reagan.

geeber:

And, realistically, nationalized health care isn’t going to save GM. It certainly didn’t save British Leyland.

Since nationalized health care existed in Britain prior to the formation of British Leyland, that is utterly irrelevant to the present situation. The health care obligations of American Leyland are real, large, and problematic. They are not going to be saved by universal healthcare alone, but it could help them (and, in fact, most businesses) in a big way. (Taking away “lack of decent healthcare” as a reason not to join a company would be a tremendous boost for small businesses looking for quality employees, but I digress.)

Please note: I support letting American Leyland live or die on it’s own merit (bye GM and Chrysler!), and I don’t support Obama’s position in this case.

Let’s see how our “free market” is doing today.
1) Bear Stearns bailout: $32 bil
2) Ethanol, sugar, cotton, corn subsidies
3) $19 Bil in lease forgiveness to big oil

Sounds like socialism for corporations and capitalism for everybody else.

Instead of “socialized control of the marketplace” lets have Enron run the market!

indi500fan: “Obama + Dem House + Dem Senate = Christmas for the UAW. Not a lock, but way more than 50% probability. Also look for “card check” to be quickly implemented in place of elections leading to quick unionization of most transplants.”

I think these are safest two predictions for domestic policy under an Obama administration.

Also look for “card check” to be quickly implemented in place of elections leading to quick unionization of most transplants.

He’s looking to the future, and her name is Mexamerada. That’s U.S., Mexico, Puerto Rico and the five most socialist Canadian provinces, which I realize is like finding the greenest blade of grass. In the end, they’re all the same.

Call me Mr. Disillusioned, but hasn’t McCain been touting a similar message himslef for about 12 years now, campaign finance reform beign his crowning jewel? When you have a massive turnover in the House of Representatives and still nothing changes, it makes me wonder if the impetus of our governmetn and country isn’t too great to change our course. The Republicans say one thing, the Democrats spout another, but in the end I think we always get what both sides really wanted in the beginning, more government handouts for their district.

I’m not saying that Obama is a Lincoln. I’m not particularly excited about him (and I find the religious-like fervor on the part of some supporters to be a bit frightening), but between energy policy, Iraq and the Supreme Court, the alternative truly scares me.