There are 38 comments.

1. Coolidge
   Bartholomew Xerxes Ogilvie, Jr.

   @BartholomewXerxesOgilvieJr

   1:29 PM EDT ⋅ Oct 15, 2014

   Aaron Miller:

   Any voter intelligent, informed, and interested enough to care about the details…

   Yes. If only those were the voters we had.

2. Thatcher
   TG

   @TG

   1:30 PM EDT ⋅ Oct 15, 2014

   John Davey:… But until we start offering solutions, and marry them to consistent messaging, we’ll continue to pick through the left’s table scraps.

   Unfortunately, freeing the market (which is really the meat of “our side’s” aim) is *not* (rhetorically) offering solutions.  To so many, when we talk about the power of the free market, we sound like the Underpants Gnomes:

   1)  Free market

   2)  ??

   3) Happy days!

   I had to go through an entire quarter (think trimester) course on Comparative Economics (taught in the early 1980’s by an immigrant from Poland) to truly absorb the message.  And, because the very nature of free market solutions mean that we *don’t know,* right now, precisely what the result will look like … well, it sounds like we’re taking it all on faith.

   Which we are, in a way, we have faith in the additive affect of all those individual choices.

3. Thatcher
   TG

   @TG

   2:39 PM EDT ⋅ Oct 15, 2014

   TG:

   …

   Which we are, in a way, we have faith in the additive affect of all those individual choices.

   Argh!  “Effect,” not “affect.”  (no editing for me, today, in Rico 2.0, sigh).

4. Inactive
   x

   @CatoRand

   4:10 AM EDT ⋅ Oct 16, 2014

   Ball Diamond Ball:

   Zafar:

   MLH:As an analogy: how expensive would car insurance be if it covered oil changes, the 30 and 60K services, replacement of the timing belt, clutch, etc?

   If your insurer took an HMO approach to it, these services would probably be a lot cheaper.

   Unless it was mandatory, in which case it would be more expensive and less reliable.

   And it would only be available at two garages, one in Albany and the other in Tucson.

5. Inactive
   x

   @CatoRand

   4:15 AM EDT ⋅ Oct 16, 2014

   Zafar:

   Ball Diamond Ball:

   Zafar:

   MLH:As an analogy: how expensive would car insurance be if it covered oil changes, the 30 and 60K services, replacement of the timing belt, clutch, etc?

   If your insurer took an HMO approach to it, these services would probably be a lot cheaper.

   Unless it was mandatory, in which case it would be more expensive and less reliable.

   If the Millennial is smart, he or she is going to be able to compare the % of GDP spent on healthcare (the US 18%, Australia 10%, just for example, for very similar health care technology, universal coverage and better financial outcomes) and draw some conclusions.

   The point is – I understand the theory that the free market should make things cheaper and more efficient – and largely that is 100% true, because if you don’t pay for something you don’t get it. The reason health care is different (demonstrably, see % GDP etc. above) is that people are not really willing to let the improvident die in a ditch, and this basic and almost unchangeable fact about advanced human societies skews the market.

   That’s true.  The other reason is that the socialized medicine world largely free rides on the innovation developed and paid for in the U.S.

6. Member
   Zafar

   @Zafar

   7:44 AM EDT ⋅ Oct 16, 2014

   Cato Rand:

   Zafar:

   Ball Diamond Ball:

   Zafar:

   MLH:As an analogy: how expensive would car insurance be if it covered oil changes, the 30 and 60K services, replacement of the timing belt, clutch, etc?

   If your insurer took an HMO approach to it, these services would probably be a lot cheaper.

   Unless it was mandatory, in which case it would be more expensive and less reliable.

   If the Millennial is smart, he or she is going to be able to compare the % of GDP spent on healthcare (the US 18%, Australia 10%, just for example, for very similar health care technology, universal coverage and better financial outcomes) and draw some conclusions.

   The point is – I understand the theory that the free market should make things cheaper and more efficient – and largely that is 100% true, because if you don’t pay for something you don’t get it. The reason health care is different (demonstrably, see % GDP etc. above) is that people are not really willing to let the improvident die in a ditch, and this basic and almost unchangeable fact about advanced human societies skews the market.

   That’s true. The other reason is that the socialized medicine world largely free rides on the innovation developed and paid for in the U.S.

   That’s what people say – and I think it may be true for pharmaceuticals, but I don’t believe it’s true of actual medical procedures.  To some extent that may be because the price tag is not actually what is usually charged/paid for, but it seems like a problem to some degree.

7. Inactive
   x

   @CatoRand

   6:21 PM EDT ⋅ Oct 16, 2014

   Zafar:

   Cato Rand:

   Zafar:

   Ball Diamond Ball:

   Zafar:

   MLH:As an analogy: how expensive would car insurance be if it covered oil changes, the 30 and 60K services, replacement of the timing belt, clutch, etc?

   If your insurer took an HMO approach to it, these services would probably be a lot cheaper.

   Unless it was mandatory, in which case it would be more expensive and less reliable.

   If the Millennial is smart, he or she is going to be able to compare the % of GDP spent on healthcare (the US 18%, Australia 10%, just for example, for very similar health care technology, universal coverage and better financial outcomes) and draw some conclusions.

   The point is – I understand the theory that the free market should make things cheaper and more efficient – and largely that is 100% true, because if you don’t pay for something you don’t get it. The reason health care is different (demonstrably, see % GDP etc. above) is that people are not really willing to let the improvident die in a ditch, and this basic and almost unchangeable fact about advanced human societies skews the market.

   That’s true. The other reason is that the socialized medicine world largely free rides on the innovation developed and paid for in the U.S.

   That’s what people say – and I think it may be true for pharmaceuticals, but I don’t believe it’s true of actual medical procedures. To some extent that may be because the price tag is not actually what is usually charged/paid for, but it seems like a problem to some degree.

   I was thinking primarily of pharmaceuticals although my guess would be that the goofy US system is at least a little more flexible than at least single payer systems in permitting innovation in other areas as well.  Maybe not.  There may be other countervailing factors.

8. Member
   user_178767

   @AvikRoy

   3:22 AM EDT ⋅ Apr 15, 2015

   “Repeal Obamacare from the inside out.” Brilliant. I am going to have to steal that line.