Questions on Health Care
Yesterday, Barack Obama railed against big insurance companies and their "greed" as he publicly pushed for health care reform to be passed through reconciliation. There are so many things to say on this topic but I will limit myself to just a couple. First is the continued Orwellian language Obama has been relying upon in so many instances over the past year. His new mantra is that health care reform deserves "an up or down vote." What he means, of course, is a simple majority vote, which can be achieved via the reconciliation process. But he can't say "simple majority," due to the election of Scott Brown in the most liberal state in the union. Brown's election was in no small part a referendum on health care reform, and a referendum on the public value of the filibuster. It was Massachusetts, a state that is discovering its own woes with an ambitious health care system, standing athwart history, yelling "Stop!" So to say "simple majority" is to juxtapose it with "supermajority," which they no longer have... because the voting public did, with purposeful intent, remove it from Obama's toolbox.
We are left then, with "up or down vote," which just seems so fair and democratic, doesn't it? Yet, were I a reporter allowed to ask a question, I might ask for clarification: "Mr. President, you have said this reform deserves 'an up or down vote.' With all due respect, is there another kind?"
The other issue for today, and the other resulting questions, stems from the perceived "greed" of the insurance industry. The casual left has helpfully pushed plenty of OpenSecrets.org information to the public detailing certain Republican Senators' ties to Big Insurance. Proof! The thought (OK, half-thought) goes that the only possible objection to the health care reform that is on the table is that Big Insurance has paid Republicans to vote against it. Of course, you don't have to look far to see that Democrats receive plenty of this money as well. Why? Not to protect an industry, but to rig it in their favor. Michael Barone wrote a while ago about the reality of a new crony capitalism, where CEOs shift focus from satisfying customers to lobbying the government to gain competitive advantages over smaller, weaker businesses that might challenge them. Case in point: why do insurance companies still enjoy an anti-trust exemption?
Are Insurance CEOs any more greedy than CEOs of other industries? Or do they simply have government that is more and more willing to fulfill this greed if certain "public good" ends are met? I ask these questions thanks to prompts from Thomas Sowell, who asks the same questions of the financial industry:
Obviously what changed, and what answers the tantalizing last question, is of course the perverse incentives created by government, which on the one hand forced lenders to give money to those who were not likely to pay, and on the other guaranteed those risks with taxpayer dollars. Miraculously, on a third hand (government can make its own rules), it also artificially restricted the supply of housing in California, driving prices through the roof. Yet far from being a localized bubble, these inflated homes were financed by mortgages signed by borrowers who were unlikely to pay, commoditized through mortgage securities owned by people and businesses across the country, and backed with taxpayer dollars. But the root problem was Wall Street greed? This is akin to standing at trial blaming a homeowner for severely beating a man, ignoring the fact that the second man had broken into the first man's house, at night, carrying a gun.
We are left then, with "up or down vote," which just seems so fair and democratic, doesn't it? Yet, were I a reporter allowed to ask a question, I might ask for clarification: "Mr. President, you have said this reform deserves 'an up or down vote.' With all due respect, is there another kind?"
The other issue for today, and the other resulting questions, stems from the perceived "greed" of the insurance industry. The casual left has helpfully pushed plenty of OpenSecrets.org information to the public detailing certain Republican Senators' ties to Big Insurance. Proof! The thought (OK, half-thought) goes that the only possible objection to the health care reform that is on the table is that Big Insurance has paid Republicans to vote against it. Of course, you don't have to look far to see that Democrats receive plenty of this money as well. Why? Not to protect an industry, but to rig it in their favor. Michael Barone wrote a while ago about the reality of a new crony capitalism, where CEOs shift focus from satisfying customers to lobbying the government to gain competitive advantages over smaller, weaker businesses that might challenge them. Case in point: why do insurance companies still enjoy an anti-trust exemption?
Are Insurance CEOs any more greedy than CEOs of other industries? Or do they simply have government that is more and more willing to fulfill this greed if certain "public good" ends are met? I ask these questions thanks to prompts from Thomas Sowell, who asks the same questions of the financial industry:
Take Wall Street "greed." Is there any evidence that people in Wall Street were any less interested in making money during all the decades and generations when investments in housing were among the safest investments around? If their greed did not bring on an economic disaster before, why would it bring it on now?
As for lenders, how could they have expected to satisfy their greed by lending to people who were not likely to repay them?
Obviously what changed, and what answers the tantalizing last question, is of course the perverse incentives created by government, which on the one hand forced lenders to give money to those who were not likely to pay, and on the other guaranteed those risks with taxpayer dollars. Miraculously, on a third hand (government can make its own rules), it also artificially restricted the supply of housing in California, driving prices through the roof. Yet far from being a localized bubble, these inflated homes were financed by mortgages signed by borrowers who were unlikely to pay, commoditized through mortgage securities owned by people and businesses across the country, and backed with taxpayer dollars. But the root problem was Wall Street greed? This is akin to standing at trial blaming a homeowner for severely beating a man, ignoring the fact that the second man had broken into the first man's house, at night, carrying a gun.
Comments