Hennessey hits “reply all” to Obama e-mail on health care
posted at 10:33 am on August 1, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Former Bush economic adviser Keith Hennessey got an e-mail from Barack Obama this week. Oh, it wasn’t to ask Hennessey for better advice than Obama gets at the moment, which wouldn’t be difficult to beat. The e-mail came from Obama’s campaign staff, who apparently remain employed eight months after Obama won the election as some sort of stimulus package, and it explained the need for ObamaCare in a spam attack on millions of inboxes. Hennessey gives a virtual “reply all” to explain why ObamaCare will make health-care delivery worse, more expensive, and unmanageable:
President Obama is correct that the underlying problem with health care is rising costs. Because of this problem, your paycheck grows more slowly, millions of Americans cannot afford to buy health insurance, and the escalating costs of Medicare and Medicaid will force enormous tax increases onto you and your children. The President wants to slow the growth of health care spending, and so do I.
Congress has gone in the opposite direction. Rather than changing incentives to reduce the cost of health insurance, they are trying to shift those costs onto someone else: you. The facts are not in dispute. The bill being developed in the House of Representatives would mean:
- No reduction in the growth of average private health insurance premiums;
- More than $1 trillion of new government spending over the next decade;
- $239 billion more debt in the short run, with ever-increasing additions to the deficit forever; and
- More than $500 billion of tax increases, including higher income tax rates on successful small businesses.
The U.S. economy is struggling to recover from a deep recession. America cannot afford a bill that imposes these extra burdens on an already weak economy. Rising health care costs are the problem, and so Congress’ solution begins by spending a trillion dollars more on health care. That doesn’t make sense.
Hennessey understands that the key to reform is expanding the role of competition in health insurance. ObamaCare does the opposite; it forces all insurance plans to offer essentially the same profile in order to qualify in the “exchanges” to come. That magnifies one of the anti-competitive bottlenecks already creating problems — the human resources offices at businesses who offer health care. When insurers have to compete to get individual business, they will innovate and create a multitude of choices for the consumer.
Read all of Keith’s excellent reply. It makes so much sense that it’s almost guaranteed that Congress won’t listen — unless we all keep calling to make them listen.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
The bygone Bush days, when we had adults running the country.
Hening on August 1, 2009 at 10:40 AM
Making sense doesn’t get you fawning media attention and an invite for steaks at the White House.
Bishop on August 1, 2009 at 10:42 AM
August recess… the not-so-silent majority is now up to bat.
mjbrooks3 on August 1, 2009 at 10:43 AM
“Rising health care costs are the problem, and so Congress’ solution begins by spending a trillion dollars more on health care. That doesn’t make sense.”
Of course it doesn’t make sense if your goal truly is to bolster the economy and control costs. That’s not the goal. Subjugation and domination are the goals and to that end it’s working like a charm.
SKYFOX on August 1, 2009 at 10:46 AM
But we NEED OBAMACARE!
How will we cover the 200 MILLION uninsured?!?!?!
The evil companies won’t help!!!
/pelosi
blatantblue on August 1, 2009 at 10:47 AM
Bless him.
I worry that people of stature and intellect in our country are cowering to avoid being visited by Obama’s bus tours, or even to avoid being attacked by the state-run media running interference for this terrible President.
God bless him for speaking up. We need to support him and publicly thank people like him for remaining true to their intellectual calling.
It ain’t easy.
jeff_from_mpls on August 1, 2009 at 10:48 AM
Does anyone else find it creepy that conservatives constantly apply buzzwords like “free market solutions” and “competition” to every single problem (healthcare, education..)? Last time I checked capitalism was an economic system, not an all-encompassing ideology.
crr6 on August 1, 2009 at 10:51 AM
The immoral propagandists in the White House launched a pre-emptive strike by calling criticism of the health care takeover “swift boat” attacks.
We need to hit back harder and with great precision.
And the folks who go to the Town Halls with their candidates have to make it very clear they are there to demand answers.
The Swift Boat story was the case of a lying veteran who was put in his place when he misrepresented his military service. A justified correction of the historical record.
In our case, the lying one has not yet made history. We’re trying to prevent his reckless historical abomination from occurring in the first place.
Let’s roll.
jeff_from_mpls on August 1, 2009 at 10:52 AM
tech savvy Obama staff on the attack
rob verdi on August 1, 2009 at 10:53 AM
We’ve already lost this battle. It’s going to be ramrodded down out throats.
In the meantime, they’re trying to take control of the rest of the businesses in the US by controlling salaries and even the twits on Fox news are talking about how this is probably a good thing!?!
Skywise on August 1, 2009 at 10:53 AM
I agree with you.
Free markets and competition are techniques, and they either work or they fail. Like cooking a meal with this ingredient or that. When they fail, which they did in the Financial Services industry, it must be admitted that they failed.
Propose them as techniques, not as “principles”.
You make a very valid and important point. Good on you.
jeff_from_mpls on August 1, 2009 at 10:55 AM
Ah, but it is ideology with a very extensive reach. It embodies the morality of interaction, the golden rule.
Everything else is some variation on slave labor.
Count to 10 on August 1, 2009 at 10:55 AM
Very well done, Keith Hennessey and Ed Morrissey. Thanks.
Loxodonta on August 1, 2009 at 10:56 AM
Government forcing broke the financial industry, it didn’t just ‘fail’ like a worn out part.
Count to 10 on August 1, 2009 at 10:57 AM
+1 , in obama’s america slaves will be known as “volunteers”.
weewilly on August 1, 2009 at 10:59 AM
“Hope”, “change”, “speaking truth to power”…yeah, I hate those buzzwords.
Bishop on August 1, 2009 at 10:59 AM
So I get to keep my private health insurance, but the premiums won’t go down. And for that privilege I get to pay higher taxes? What a win-win for me. When do those goons start knocking on doors to promote Obamacare? I can’t wait.
ctmom on August 1, 2009 at 11:01 AM
It’s one thing to use buzzwords as campaign slogans, and quite another to plug in the exact same buzzwords to attempt to solve every major policy problem in America.
crr6 on August 1, 2009 at 11:02 AM
Obama will ram health care down your throats because whites are racist and he’s half black. You will pay for it because slavery happened hundreds of years ago and still occurs today in other parts of the world (which is your fault too, that’s why evil white people should pay for world health care).
I’m black and never wrong.
signed
liberal343
darwin on August 1, 2009 at 11:02 AM
Message to Hussein: What sucessful Small Businesses?
BigMike252 on August 1, 2009 at 11:03 AM
If you realize the fact that all government solutions to those problems are economic in nature… no.
Skywise on August 1, 2009 at 11:03 AM
You’re removing a degree of freedom where there should be one.
I agree the top-level principle is something like the Golden Rule.
But free-market capitalism isn’t strongly implied by the Golden Rule. It’s proposed as one possible form of social life that might be consistent with the Golden Rule.
Free market capitalism is still a hypothesis at this point.
And in my opinion it’s not a very strong one. Better than many, don’t get me wrong! But from a Christian point of view, unfettered free-market capitalism is not all that impressive when judged by an absolute standard.
Free market capitalism is like the gruel the chef pulls out of the fridge for dinner. It’s the best he can whip together, and it’s better than starving to death, which is the only proposition the Marxist chef has to offer.
But free-market capitalism is no five star meal. Let’s cut that pretense right now.
jeff_from_mpls on August 1, 2009 at 11:04 AM
SKYFOX;How right you are.
The ultimate goal is deciding who gets to live and who dies.Absolute power.
I have never been a believer in conspiracy theories,although I may sound like a theorist.I’m not suggesting that,I believe it is just a difference in ideology,but the end result will be the same.When the financial burden of this plan becomes too great,rationing health care has to follow.That means some of us will have to be sacrificed for”the greater good”.
I find it incomprehensible that no one in Congress or the Senate hasn’t mentioned torte reform.I realize the power of the trial lawyers association,and that so many in Congress are trial lawyers themselves,but it seems to me that at least one of them would bring the subject up.
DDT on August 1, 2009 at 11:04 AM
Seems you must have missed this:
http://www.google.com/search?q=organizing+for+america&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
RightWinged on August 1, 2009 at 11:05 AM
Maybe it’s starting to be cool to not trust the government.
Obama and his amoral unethical minions do not understand the principle of reaping and sowing. When governments interfere with this spiritual principle there are only bad result. You reap what you sow.
Mojave Mark on August 1, 2009 at 11:05 AM
You’re kidding right, a man got himself elected using those words as a prescription to solving every problem in America.
The only reason you don’t hear Ogabe using the antonyms to “free market” and “competition” is because he knows the public would recoil as if confronted with a Rattle snake, even though those words describe exactly what he wants.
Bishop on August 1, 2009 at 11:07 AM
Listen, I’m more on your side than not.
But let me tell you something, I was there in the Financial Service industry my friend. When Barney Frank whipped out his plan for reckless lending, the Financial Services industry lopped it up. It was an orgy of lending, and the executives reveled in it with great enthusiasm.
And let me tell you a dirty little secret. They still do.
Barney Frank did not make the FS industry do anything it wasn’t quite happy to do. That is a fact. The 1990s and early 2000s were high times in the FS industry. There were no frowns. No stroking of chins and reflective, hmmm should we really be doing this?
It was an orgy, my friend. You can’t pass it all off on “government”.
jeff_from_mpls on August 1, 2009 at 11:09 AM
Free-market capitalism does ONE thing better than any other economic system. Gets government out of the control of your life. From a Christian stand point, that’s a good thing. All other economic systems will give state control over your morality.
Like paying for abortions… in the socialist health care bill they’re about to sign.
Capitalism is liberty, plain and simple. Without it, you have no real freedoms.
Skywise on August 1, 2009 at 11:10 AM
And you wonder where all the paid obamatrolls come from!
This death-care bill is a must read for everyone!!!
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200ih.pdf
christene on August 1, 2009 at 11:12 AM
“Free Market Capitalism” is little more than a logical result of respecting a right to property. The golden rule as applied to economics is to respect the property rights of others. As such, all transactions must be consented to by all parties involved. You can still have regulation in this — it is basically there to insure that property rights are not violated by secondary effects (pollution, etc.).
It also allows you to go your own Christian way in terms of donating to charity (which, biblically, is supposed to be done as secretly as possible). Government confiscation of wealth and subsequent transfer of said wealth to unproductive persons is not charity.
Count to 10 on August 1, 2009 at 11:12 AM
so socialism is the way to go to get a “five star meal”? you present extremes of starving(marxism) and gruel(capitalism), and seeing as how theoretically socialism lies somewhere between these two but progressing towards marxism, you suggest that the middle ground is a “five star meal” when in reality the difference between starving and gruel is eating dirt, no thanks, even in this ridiculous characterization gruel is the BEST choice! so if we were to give 5 stars to these terms marxism would be 1 star, socilalism 3 and capitalism 5, unless you have some mysterious 4th ideology that leads to “5 star meals”
weewilly on August 1, 2009 at 11:14 AM
You are confusing “what people in an industry want” with “a free market”. Corporations actually have little incentive to defend the free market if they see the proposed intervention benefiting themselves.
This isn’t a matter of what they would have liked to do, but what they would have done in the absence of intervention.
Count to 10 on August 1, 2009 at 11:16 AM
The helathcare bill is an obamanation of the highest order.
This is a power grab that will cement power for them to some degree forever and most of the press and media/big businesses is now being complicit in the SOCIALST takeover of this nation. Remember this when: you buy GE Products or patronize NBC, plan a trip to Disneyland or watch ABC Programming. People need to be saying – “NO, I wont support you when you are working overtime to underminde the constitution and subvert the American way”.
We need to be sending letters to companies that advertise on MSNBC that simply say I cannot buy your products any longer as you are supporting companies with your advertising dollars that are socialists and that is unamerican. This is an important lesson for corporate america to learn – sooner or later the communist or socialists will be coming for them also (Not that they aren’t already).
We need to be raising HELL at our representatives offices and making them extremely nervous. They need to be living under the sword. Running Scared from “Pitchforks and torches”.They need to be threatened. Some of us need to go to jail (If code pink can go for crap – this is certainly worthy of losing your freedom for a few hours in an effort not to lose it forever).
“The rats are in the corn” – From The Stand, By Stephen King
SC has two rats: Spratt and Clyburn. I will be sending my support to whoever is running against them. Clyburn is goig to be almost impossible. They cooked up his district on purely racial lines (Even says so on his website to some degree). Spratt, on the other hand is VERY vulnerable. Figure out who you can target in your state. Run the rats out.
blaque jacques on August 1, 2009 at 11:21 AM
Again, I’m in more agreement than disagreement.
The point I’m making is razor thin. I’m saying capitalism isn’t synonymous with the Golden Rule. It is one system among other logical possibilities. Is it the best hypothesis so far? Yes.
I’m just saying don’t baptize Capitalism. It seems to be compatible with the Golden Rule, but there are other possibilities.
Like what? Remember, I’m talking logical possibility, not “planned economy” here.
The Catholic ideal has been a society ruled by the principle of subsidiarity. You’d have to google it, but it’s neither capitalist nor marxist. It is a principle that you must love your neighbor directly, and that all problems are solved in order of proximity. First, it’s you with a direct responsibility to your neighbor. Then, the parish or church, then the city, then the state, and then, when all else fails, the federal government.
Things are the exact opposite today for one reason: our moral culture does not recognize a direct responsibility to my neighbor. Indeed, the thought that I am responsible for my neighbor is abhorrent to capitalism, isn’t it. But here we are. Our culture has a free pass to pass the buck on our neighbor, and what a surprise! We pass the buck and it lands on President Obama’s desk. Where he’ll happily take use our failure to impose state control.
This is why I agree with Mitt Romney that free-market capitalism is doomed to fail unless the culture is a moral culture.
Lots of implications flow from this. By destroying our churches, secularists of all political stripes are hastening the statist solution.
And finally, to make my point, do you see how insufficient it is to offer capitalism without the moral conversion necessary to prevent it from deteriorating into marxism?
That’s what I mean when I say capitalism is a rickety roulette wheel. I don’t trust it to save what’s left of our culture.
jeff_from_mpls on August 1, 2009 at 11:22 AM
I do. The principle of subsidiarity as proposed by the Catholic Church is a true organizing principle that embraces capitalism but avoids its inner contradictions. See my post at 11:22.
jeff_from_mpls on August 1, 2009 at 11:24 AM
That’s an interesting take on what happened. The government gave out money for “free” loans so that poor people could get houses. These loans were backed by the government so that if the poor people defaulted, the government covered the loan.
There’s not a single financial offier in the world that wouldn’t take that offer. And that’s EXACTLY what happened. Every bank in the world took part in the loans.
Then Barney Frank’s little fiefdom went belly up and the government refused to cover the loans, so the insurance company that backed up the government had to pay out… oh and WHO was that company? AIG.
And that’s why everything collapsed last year.
So, in summary… Barney Frank tried to put forward a very Christian idea of giving people affordable housing by using quasi-socialist eoconimcs and destroyed the US economy.
Skywise on August 1, 2009 at 11:25 AM
You are describing what an individual could choose to do in a free market economy, rather than a separate system.
Count to 10 on August 1, 2009 at 11:25 AM
I’ve been cool for a long time.
thomasaur on August 1, 2009 at 11:25 AM
The problem is that didn’t prevent them from living off the government, just provided them with a rational to do so.
Count to 10 on August 1, 2009 at 11:27 AM
jeff_from_mpls on August 1, 2009 at 11:09 AM
Put down the crack pipe, Jeff.
Of course the financial industry was happy to have Bahney Fwank and the government step in and give approvel.
This was no act of “free market capitalism”. It was government stepping in where it did not belong, and sanctioning a reckless policy. The government became a guarantor in the deal, and fed the recklessness.
I will grant that there are and were greedy bastards that took advantage of a short-term situation. The board of directors are the ones that should have kept this in check, with the threat of bankruptcy as the incentive for prudence.
Capitalism will adjust and right itself over time. But there will be bastards who make good money on the timing.
But it seems to me that government programs do not correct themselves over time – they go on in perpetuity – for as long as that government is in control. Until the empire falls.
connertown on August 1, 2009 at 11:28 AM
culture starts at one’s own home, no ideology will ensure a “moral” culture, for evidence of this observe our modern secproglib school system and the amoral morons it turns out by the bushel, the only way to “save our culture” is have plenty of kids and home school them, sounds like you want some sort of sharia law.
weewilly on August 1, 2009 at 11:30 AM
Last time I checked;
1. Competition improved every single product and service to which it was applied, reducing price and increasing value to the consumers.
2. Free-market solutions worked.
Examples abound, if you care to look.
Also, the last time I checked, a belief in competition and free-market solutions was a basic tenet of a set of core values commonly called conservatism.
So, is it “creepy” that we who believe would use words, and cite examples, that reinforce our core values.
Not really.
massrighty on August 1, 2009 at 11:30 AM
hahaha, that’s priceless, using the president’s own contact list to rebuke his propaganda. That’s probably the funniest thing I’ll read today. It truly deserved the red meat image, though, no? I hope he kept the list of contacts and bombards them with the truth about this boondoggle congress is trying to shove down our throats.
scalleywag on August 1, 2009 at 11:31 AM
…Just be sure to bring your Visa,
Because the White House doesn’t take citizens seriously,
and they DON’T take American Express.
DrAllecon on August 1, 2009 at 11:31 AM
Every culture or form of government will fail without morality.
thomasaur on August 1, 2009 at 11:32 AM
My father, a small town farm equipment mechanic, never had health insurance. One time he broke a bone, so he called around various clinics and hospitals to see who had the best rates for treating him.
In some of my previous employment my health insurance did not have a drug benefit. My wife called around to the various pharmacies for the best price on prescription medicine. (I was amazed at the price differences among them for the same drug!)
Mr. Hennessey drew a quick analogy to the auto insurance industry. He could have developed that analogy a bit further, as there are some lessons that could be taken from the auto insurance industry and applied to medical insurance:
- Get rid of that in-network/out-of-network convention. Taking my car in for repairs, I have yet to hear “Well, we take AllState and Farmer’s, but we we don’t accept State Farm.”
- Move toward facility billing. Fairly common medical events (physical exam, mammogram, colonoscopy, etc.) all result in a dozen separate billings from each provider, because they are all independent contractors. Consolidating them into a single billing from the facility will save a chunk of paperwork, and would be a precursor to billing for procedures instead of for services.
- Resorting insurance back to the ‘catastrophic’ nature it was originally intended. Again, I do not file an insurance claim for an oil change, or for tire replacement, or for a brake job. These are costs of being in this mobile society, and I pay them. And I shop for best pricing.
- Consistency across insurance policies offered. The auto insurance industry is State regulated, and policies across the providers are very similar. They all have certain basic State-mandated minimums of coverages. The same could be accomplished for health insurance policies. That would eliminate those accusations about how confusing it would be to select the proper care. In fact, it need not be any more confusing than choosing an auto insurance policy.
We managed to move the Retirement programs from employer-provided to individually owned and entirely portable accounts. We can do the same for medical programs. The issue at hand is not access to care, or quality of care, or availability of care. It is only the costs of that care. Let’s not let Congress muddle it all up, when it is not actually a medical problem.
ss396 on August 1, 2009 at 11:34 AM
FIFY. Sad, but true, IMO.
connertown on August 1, 2009 at 11:34 AM
MarkABinVA on August 1, 2009 at 11:36 AM
I’ll go a step further and amplify my diatribe against free market capitalism as some sort of Christian ideal.
One of the points made by Pope Benedict XVI in his recent encyclical letter caritas in veritate was that capitalism is founded on the contract between two individuals, a buyer and a seller, who agree to an exactly even exchange. Seller gives up a good, buyer gives up an amount of money precisely equal to the value of the good.
Capitalism requires a zero-sum exchange.
Pope Benedict pointed out that the Gospel seems dissatisfied with this model of human interaction. For you Christians out there, you might think about the strange and slightly unnerving elements in the Gospel where Jesus seems to impose superhuman requirements on us. For example, you can’t walk one mile with your neighbor, walk two. Don’t give him one loaf of bread, give him two.
No, the bible is not an economic textbook. These are parables of the heart, and the idea underneath them seems to me to suggest that a zero-sum exchange is not a Christian exchange. As a human being, as a Christian, you owe your neighbor more for his money. There needs to be a slight imbalance in the books in favor of your neighbor. And an even greater imbalance when your neighbor is one of the lowest members of society. You owe that guy a good deal. Zero-sum exchange with the vulnerable of a society will land you directly at the gates of hell.
Food for thought. Non-Christians of course are free to skip past it and talk about rugged individualism and free market capitalism as usual.
jeff_from_mpls on August 1, 2009 at 11:36 AM
Okay.
Free-market solutions and competititions can be thought of as tools, by this definition;
‘Something used in the performance of an operation; an instrument:’
And, we should use those tools to ‘perform the operation’ of improving our lives.
Then, we get to the definition of tool, as it is commonly applied to you;
‘A person used to carry out the designs of another; a dupe.’
massrighty on August 1, 2009 at 11:38 AM
They fail from the fact that their moral compass wavers of fails. Morality is simply the difference between right and wrong. When right is shifted to allow wrong to co-exist failure will follow.
thomasaur on August 1, 2009 at 11:40 AM
pure. marxist. pablum.
weewilly on August 1, 2009 at 11:40 AM
You really don’t understand. If it was “precisely equal”, the exchange wouldn’t happen. The seller sells the good for more than it is worth to seller, and the buyer buys it for less than it is worth to buyer. Both benefit; positive sum. What could be more moral than that?
Count to 10 on August 1, 2009 at 11:42 AM
RightWinged on August 1, 1009 at 11:05 AM
I just looked on the link on your blog…..thank you!!! Our message needs to be getting out too.
Just an observation at county fairs and state fairs ……lots and lots of senior citizens attend fairs and stop by booths, and by the way, seniors vote and are talking about the Health Scam. Put petitions out as concerned citizens if you have a Republican booth.
Just sayin’
yoda on August 1, 2009 at 11:42 AM
At this point, I’d settle for law.
We are breaking down as a society, my friend.
See those gangs in the inner city? A similar thing happened during the collapse of the Roman Empire. The people instinctively reverted to tribalism, feudal agreements, and city-states.
But hey, at least the hot-dog guy can still hawk his wienies to the barbarians and make a quick buck, thanks to good-old yankee free market capitalism!
Capitalism fails unless the culture is a moral culture. There was a time when the phrase “moral culture” was redundant. Sadly, that time is no more.
jeff_from_mpls on August 1, 2009 at 11:44 AM
Well then I guess there’s not much point in someone as stupid as me continuing the discussion.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
jeff_from_mpls on August 1, 2009 at 11:46 AM
So what you are saying is that if I’m in a boat and come across a man who is drowning I should jump into the water and allow him to stand on my shoulders to ensure that he survives instead of pulling him aboard the boat. *_*
thomasaur on August 1, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Can’t say I disagree with you. It will probably still take some time, but we definitely seem to be well on the path of decline.
But hey, if we can keep from warming the planet by a half a degree or so between now and then, we will have truly left a mark to be judged by. Let’s spend some capital on that.
connertown on August 1, 2009 at 11:49 AM
I think many are missing Jeff’s point. If I understand him correctly, capitalism is the best available choice because it gives the individual the most freedom. It is not, however, the perfect choice. I agree.
I believe that he knows the solution he offers is utopian, and we all know that utopian ideas can not work. Man is imperfect and thus cannot form perfect systems.
He supports, and I support, free market capitalism because it is the best available option.
DCGamer on August 1, 2009 at 11:53 AM
why do you hate that hot-dog monger? maybe he is “moral”, is it amoral to feed one’s family by selling to “barbarians” for a profit? christianity had more to do with the downfall of rome than “tribalism” and “feudal disagreements”, besides where do these things happen in the US? the only tribes i know of are the huge illegal alien hordes we are swamped with, and i’ve yet to come across any shoguns or kings or dukes or whoever would preside over these supposed feudal lands we occupy. it’s very obvious what you advocate: autocracy and slavery with a single state religion (apparently catholicism), with presumably the pope as our ruler?
weewilly on August 1, 2009 at 11:54 AM
What Jeff is pimping is nothing more than warmed over liberation theology. The fact that he doesn’t discount shari’a law immediately should tell you something.
Instead of worrying about engaging in economic transactions that benefit my trading partner and not myself, I’ll listen to what someone much, much wiser than Jeff advocates:
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. (Adam Smith)”
PimFortuynsGhost on August 1, 2009 at 11:56 AM
No, I think a closer analogy would be that if you have a boat and you see a drowning man, you are obligated to help him, even if there is some risk to you or risk of damage to your boat. You cannot ask him for compensation before helping him. To do that would be a pure free-market solution.
DCGamer on August 1, 2009 at 11:56 AM
I see your point. Absolutely capitalism by definition turns capital into invention and improvement which can improve the lot of not just my neighbor, but the whole neighborhood.
Let me be clear! I’m a firm supporter of capitalism, but it doesn’t seem sufficient. The collapse of the Financial Services industry suggests to me there is a dark streak in human nature such that, even if 98% good is achieved by buying and selling loans, that 2% was a catastrophe. And that 2% was not just “big government”, it was egotistical individuals who gamed the system and didn’t care a whit that they destroyed lives.
So you say, so what that’s just a few individuals. Unfortunately, we live in a world where an individual has the technology (again, the mixed blessing of capitalism) to do catastrophic damage.
One bad egg gaming the system can poison the food supply, literally even!
jeff_from_mpls on August 1, 2009 at 11:56 AM
FIFY
CWforFreedom on August 1, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Ignorance is a temporary condition if properly treated, and every reason to continue a conversation.
Glad to be of service.
Count to 10 on August 1, 2009 at 11:58 AM
So, you are the one with the thermostat that controls the sun. How about nudging it up a bit so we can have a summer before August is gone.
Note: I continue to be amused at the complete ignorance of the geologic record displayed by those who obsess on a half a degree rise in global temperature.
Yoop on August 1, 2009 at 11:59 AM
Talk about jumping to extreme conclusions. Jeff is advocating the necessity of a moral society. A pure free-market capitalist society is not necessarily moral. Jeff is saying that capitalism is the best option available, but it is not the perfect solution.
DCGamer on August 1, 2009 at 12:01 PM
That’s an unusual way putting things. Regardless of who was involved, not only was government required to get the catastrophic damage, but most of that damage would have happened without the bad actions of the people you are talking about.
They are just the icing on the cake: obvious, but not really substantial.
Count to 10 on August 1, 2009 at 12:02 PM
Dude, I have no interest in taking away you bong or your porn or whatever.
And if I met a liberation theology proponent on the street, I’d spit in his face.
I’m saying the ship is sinking, and she’s sinking because she was missing a crucial lifeboat: let’s call that lifeboat morality.
Mitt Romney was right, capitalism without morality = doom.
jeff_from_mpls on August 1, 2009 at 12:02 PM
What a mangled metaphor.
The ship is sinking because her rudder broke off.
The rudder was built especially for her.
Either hack together a new rudder of the same design, or let’s just bring the band on deck and be done with it.
jeff_from_mpls on August 1, 2009 at 12:04 PM
Your analogy hinges on whether one is moral or amoral. Without morals or some sort of moral compass one is obligated to no one, this would be a narcissistic sociopath.
thomasaur on August 1, 2009 at 12:04 PM
Actually, a pure free-market capitalist society is moral (as far as it goes). Just think, no murder, no theft, no extortion. To bad pure is so hard to work.
What you are worrying about is the state of those who lack the ability to produce their own livelihoods. The solution to that is for the people in the system to engage in private charity.
Count to 10 on August 1, 2009 at 12:06 PM
No bong or porn, just calling it like I see it. I find it hard to square “spitting in the face” of a proponent of liberation theology to advocating the same bloody thing.
This fetish you have with morality is troubling. It wasn’t a lack of morality that hurt the Dutch–it was an attempt to impose a sense of leftist equivalence that has doomed that country.
PimFortuynsGhost on August 1, 2009 at 12:07 PM
Anyway, sorry to hijack the thread.
I urge everyone to support 100% the protesters who will attend the Health Care town halls and hold their congressman’s feet to the fire.
Government is not the solution to health care.
Tort reform, now we’re talking.
jeff_from_mpls on August 1, 2009 at 12:08 PM
Agreed. Without reservation.
PimFortuynsGhost on August 1, 2009 at 12:09 PM
Wait, what?
What does liberation theology (Racist, Marxist Christianity/Islam) have to do with porn?
Count to 10 on August 1, 2009 at 12:10 PM
A pure free-market capitalist society is not moral. I can think of many examples. Prostitution would be legal, for example. Abortion, euthanasia, eugenics, and other medical decisions would be legal. Drugs would be legal. Anything that involved a transaction between two people that did not infringe on somebody else or their property would be legal. Sweat shops would be legal. After all, if somebody was willing to work for pennies a day because it was better than starving to death, the “pure” capitalist would be all for it. That does not make it moral.
DCGamer on August 1, 2009 at 12:15 PM
i admit im slow, but i cannot get the connection between economy and morality these are two distinct and mutually exclusive concepts, i see the conclusion to be arrived at is that “greed is bad”, but i somehow cannot make the leap, i fail to see how life can continue without greed, the conflation of these terms only muddy the waters of debate, there exists no morality or ethics between a buyer and seller, they both want the best for themselves; but in our huge government system such situations are created because of “moral interventions” (community reinvestment act) as to distort the otherwise sound market practices, greed and morality played no part in the destruction of wealth, only big government polices.
weewilly on August 1, 2009 at 12:15 PM
Yes, Cto10, I agree about private charity. There is nothing moral about the government confiscating money and redistributing it.
DCGamer on August 1, 2009 at 12:17 PM
First, you can still prohibit certain activities and still be “pure free trade”. Basically, it is the traded items themselves that are illegal, rather than the trade of them.
There is also nothing immoral about “sweat shops”.
Count to 10 on August 1, 2009 at 12:29 PM
The only problem I have with Hennessey’s great letter is the linking of this onerous, marxist, healthcare effort with the recession. This effort is NEVER a good idea regardless of the economy. Even if we were back in the boom years, this health care bill would eventually break our economy and ruin health care for all Americans. Don’t let our “public servants” pass one iota of this bill — it will only be a matter of time that the Single Payer system will be in place if we do. And that spells doom for the America we know and love.
Christian Conservative on August 1, 2009 at 12:29 PM
But who’s morality should be used? Pelosi’s? The Kennedy’s? Palin’s? Meghan McCain’s? The Clinton’s?
There are plenty who would state that the boat is sinking because Bush used his morality to wage war with US Money. (Which is a legitimate government function but that’s beside the point)
I’m DESPERATELY trying to find an article I read last year about how the US senate in the early 1800s wanted to appropriate funds for a charity/bailout for some particular region that was hard hit. A famous US senator back at the time (I’m thinking Daniel Webster) was on recess and back home to talk to his constituents. He had a long talk with a farmer out in his field who agreed that it was a worthy cause but pointed out that it wasn’t HIS money to be charitable with. It was the taxpayer’s money that had been taxed for OTHER purposes. If the senator’s felt such a need to be charitable they should get together and pool their own money and give it to the region. The Senator returned and unsuprisingly, no senator wanted to do that.
Charity and capitalism are not intertwined. Charity isn’t profitable (which is why loans cannot have interest in the muslim religion). Though you could make the “rising tide lifts all boats” argument and show that you gain value elsewhere.
But charity and morality ARE directly linked.
To wit – if government controls the cash, it controls the charity, and hence… the morality…
Skywise on August 1, 2009 at 12:37 PM
No; completely separate from all of my zero-sum exchanges, I am required to feed/clothe/help those who need it. That’s Christian charity.
I’m not required to give more, as part of an exchange of goods or services for money, because someone is more needy than me. Nor am I allowed to take more, from someone less needy, as part of what should be an exchange based on value only.
massrighty on August 1, 2009 at 12:38 PM
Yes. “Sweat shops” are a transitory stage of economic development. The quality of life for someone working in a sweat shop is infinitely better than rural destitution and poverty (net earnings, life expectancy, and caloric intake are higher, while working hours lower for someone engaged in such labor v. rural labor in a pre-industrial or industrializing society).
It was statistically proven by economic historians studying the Industrial Revolution, and still holds true today.
PimFortuynsGhost on August 1, 2009 at 12:38 PM
Wasn’t it Danial Boon?
Count to 10 on August 1, 2009 at 12:44 PM
massrighty on August 1, 2009 at 12:47 PM
Maybe?
Google doesn’t bring up a match with that either…
Skywise on August 1, 2009 at 12:57 PM
Simple question. How much will this health care reform save us? Until that answer is a positive number, it’s not worth passing.
hawksruleva on August 1, 2009 at 1:01 PM
wouldn’t he have had to be the cause of him drowning in order for it to be extortion? using this line of logic ANYONE in distress is my responsibility, or i am an extortionist? so if someone starves in china and i eat a huge meal i am somehow extorting from them their fair share? shouldn’t the idiot have learned to swim or packed a lifejacket before venturing out into open water? where does personal responsibility lie in this utopian society?
weewilly on August 1, 2009 at 1:20 PM
Sorry, perhaps my post wasn’t clear.
If you come upon a drowning man, and you say “I will save you for $ 1,000.00,” and you continue to negotiate (or refuse to negotiate) while he continues to drown, then you are guilty of extortion – he’s not negotiating with you eqaually, because he may die while you talk price and terms.
That’s what I meant to imply.
massrighty on August 1, 2009 at 1:27 PM
First, I want to congratulate you on the eloquence of your posts. You make your points with vigor and little-to-no vitriol. Like I suspect you are, I am Catholic and great respect for the teachings of the Church and the writings of the Pope. You’ve written a lot, so let me respond to a few of your points.
No. No. One hundred times no. The free market is a principal based on the idea of private property and the freedom to decide what to do with your property. The original words of the Declaration of Independence declared to the right to life, liberty, and property. You can no more claim that a free market is a technique than you can claim that liberty is. You might as well argue that freedom of speech is just a technique for political discourse rather than a fundamental principal of human rights. This is not to say there are no limits to the free market, because there are just as there are limits to free speech. But any stance that starts with the belief that the free market is just a technique is off on the wrong foot.
Free Market Capitalism flows out the Golden Rule. What is the Golden Rule? “Do onto others as you would have them do unto you.” Free markets are based on exchange between individuals acting freely. To do so, you have to put yourself in the other’s shoes. You have to decide what would induce them to freely trade with you and not someone else. In other words, you have to empathize with their position. But empathy is fundamental aspect of the Golden Rule as well.
Subsidiarity is at the heart of the free market. It starts with the rule that: “The customer is always right.” In other words, we begin with the idea of fair value and treatment between the salesman and the customer. Between two individuals. You have to treat individuals fairly. Microsoft is a huge entity but if the salesman does not treat each individual customer with respect and honor, it doesn’t matter how big Microsoft is. From their it flows outward to the store which has to treat its customer base fairly and the people in its community and then upward to the company which has to create quality products. Free markets practice the idea of subsidiarity all of the time. In fact it is a necessary component of all free markets.
Absolutely 100% WRONG. Capitalism and the free markets allow both parties to mutually benefit from any exchange. For example you have a used car that you’re selling for $5000. I buy it. Why did this exchange take place? It takes place because you value $5000 more than you value your car and I value your care more than I value my $5000. We both give up something that we value less for something that we value more. If we valued both equally then no exchange would’ve been made. This is idea is fundamental and goes back to Adam Smith. Free trade benefits BOTH parties: It is NOT a zero-sum exchange.
Exactly correct. I would also add the self-government requires a moral culture as well. Capitalism though enforces moral behavior. I know in a free market system that if I screw the customer, he or she will find another business that will treat him or her fairly. On the other hand a system like socialism or Marxism does not enforce moral behavior upon people. Rather it assumes people will behave morally. For example, if we put all of industry into the hands of the government, that system will only work if the government behaves morally but the system itself provides no incentives for the government to behave morally.
Please understand the distinction. Free markets assume that people are devils but provides a system where they have to act like angels to thrive. Socialism and other command and control economic systems assume that people are angels and give them the power where they can act like devils.
This is not to say there are not devils thriving under free markets and angels operating under socialism but those are exceptions. For every Bernie Madoff, there are millions of free market capitalists given fair value for their business or service.
PackerBronco on August 1, 2009 at 1:29 PM
The starving example here is not zero-sum. If you denied food to a starving person, unless they agreed to pay you a ridiculous sum, and they had no other food available, and they starved, that could arguably be extortion.
But if you eat, while someone else starves, due to a variety of conditions beyond your control, I don’t think that fits the definition of extortion, no.
massrighty on August 1, 2009 at 1:32 PM
not to belabour my point, but what is the difference between a drowning man’s pleas and a commercial for “save the children”, the outcomes are the same or are at least implied “a child will starve if i don’t send money”, it would seem to me the man, absent of any other offers would accept such a service assuming he places a value on his salvation. you might say that it’s a monopoly and that that’s bad, it may very well be, but for the drowning man in this scenario i’m quite sure he would accept any terms.
weewilly on August 1, 2009 at 1:39 PM
Who says you can’t negotiate a price. While I wouldn’t simply by being a Christian, if I’m in the secular world I should be able to ask for payment of a service.If after I provide the service you decide not to pay me, or not pay the negotiated price, it can be settled in a court of law.
Jeff from WI on August 1, 2009 at 1:55 PM
Let’s try a counter-example here. A man is drowning and you are walking on the beach. So if we agree that freedom of speech is a fundamental human right, does that belief support your decision to not speak, to not notify the lifeguard?
My point is that we should not use a strawman in order to deny a basic fundamental human right either with the freedom of speech or the rights of private property.
PackerBronco on August 1, 2009 at 1:59 PM
M
Look again, you stupid, ignorant, ridiculously moronic troll
Free market capitalism IS an “all-encompassing ideology” which is political, social, economic………the whole show
Your stupidity grows each and every day, in each and every way–and every time you post here, you give more of your crreepy self away
Janos Hunyadi on August 1, 2009 at 2:04 PM
Does anyone else find it creepy that conservatives constantly apply buzzwords like “free market solutions” and “competition”…Last time I checked capitalism was an economic system, not an all-encompassing ideology.
crr6 on August 1, 2009 at 10:51 AM
Try again lil darlin!
So far you’re just blowing hot air in the elephants ear…
…”the record of history is absolutely crystal clear: that there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system.”
More:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A
The utopian Touchy-feely ideological sentiment is so cute in the cinema, like young Jodie & Flagg in M.K. Rawlings “The Yearling”, at least until they come up against the belly against the backbone reality – now there’s an “all-encompassing ideology” for ya.
“Let’s Roll”
On Watch on August 1, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »