Video: Taylor Marsh, Matt Lewis agree … ObamaCare is a disaster

posted at 10:12 am on December 31, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

It’s the end of the year, and we should focus on what unites us, right? Increasingly, ObamaCare has begun to fill that role. Matt Lewis of Politics Daily debates Taylor Marsh, but only in the narrowest sense of “debate.” They may have different reasons, but they both agree that ObamaCare is a disaster and should be killed by the Senate at the earliest possible moment:

Ah, the sweet smell of unity. It seems almost churlish to quibble, but Taylor seems to have an issue with the definition of “monopoly.” The private insurance industry has plenty of competitors within it, although in some states only one or two insurance companies operate (and even then, private employers self-insuring provide some competition to keep prices lower). The solution to the narrow range of choices in some states is to remove the artificial barriers to interstate competition so that consumers can choose from hundreds of different companies and thousands of different policies, not to have the government that regulates the industry crowd out the companies that compete in it.

Seriously, who came up with the “monopoly” argument anyway? Does the gas-station industry have a monopoly because the federal government doesn’t run its own chain of gas stations? Does the department-store industry have a monopoly because the Mall of America doesn’t have Congressdale’s? And can you imagine the prices and selection one would find at a Congressdale’s, anyway?

There are more death panels in ObamaCare than there are monopolies in health insurance.  And those hyperventilating about monopolies should be asked why they’re pushing a government monopoly as a solution to the nonexistent monopolies they seek to demolish.

Breaking on Hot Air

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

Lewis always has that hangover look.

kevinkristy on December 31, 2009 at 10:16 AM

Video: Taylor Marsh, Matt Lewis agree …
Never heard of either one of these people…

OmahaConservative on December 31, 2009 at 10:21 AM

Congressdale’s? Don’t give them any ideas, Mr. Morrissey.

myrenovations on December 31, 2009 at 10:21 AM

And can you imagine the prices and selection one would find at a Congressdale’s, anyway

You will wear the official uniform of Obama and like it. Striped unis for the opposition and black unis for supporters.

thomasaur on December 31, 2009 at 10:22 AM

And those hyperventilating about monopolies should be asked why they’re pushing a government monopoly as a solution to the nonexistent monopolies they seek to demolish.

I can’t decide if they are really this obtuse…

ladyingray on December 31, 2009 at 10:24 AM

So there’s hope. We can thank the intrepid Tea Party protesters of ’09 that this abomination didn’t pass when it was introduced months ago.

Mojave Mark on December 31, 2009 at 10:24 AM

They may have different reasons, but they both agree that ObamaCare is a disaster and should be killed by the Senate at the earliest possible moment:

Which, according to Frum and Brooks, makes this the perfect centrist piece of legislation.

SouthernGent on December 31, 2009 at 10:26 AM

Does the department-store industry have a monopoly because the Mall of America doesn’t have Congressdale’s? And can you imagine the prices and selection one would find at a Congressdale’s, anyway?

Brooks Brothers – Home of the impeccably creased pants.

BPD on December 31, 2009 at 10:35 AM

Video: Taylor Marsh, Matt Lewis agree … ObamaCare is a disaster

Who and who?

Never heard of them and don’t care what they have to say.

UltimateBob on December 31, 2009 at 10:39 AM

I represent at least a half dozen companies and should represent a lot more solid quality companies.

There is no monopoly in medical insurance and there never has been.

In the states where there is only one or two choices, the reason is that the one or two companies in the state have run everyone else out of the state with low prices and good benefits. As soon as those companies raise their rates and abuse their “monopoly” other competitors will come in and steal marketshare.

The health insurance industry is incredibly dynamic. The companies make changes based on competition. These changes happen every year. If you haven’t changed your individual policy in a while it would be a good idea to get a few quotes to make sure you are getting the best deal.

ThackerAgency on December 31, 2009 at 10:43 AM

They may have different reasons, but they both agree that ObamaCare is a disaster and should be killed by the Senate at the earliest possible moment:

But they don’t agree. One of them thinks the bill is too liberal, and the other thinks the bill is too conservative. They’ve come to the same conclusion for totally different reasons.

Proud Rino on December 31, 2009 at 10:44 AM

The left will always fall in line…look at germany…..

kill jews, ok…..

nondhimmie on December 31, 2009 at 10:44 AM

It is disastrously bad. An apocalyptic dirty bomb of crap.

marklmail on December 31, 2009 at 10:45 AM

And those hyperventilating about monopolies should be asked why they’re pushing a government monopoly as a solution to the nonexistent monopolies they seek to demolish.

Does the government that we now have, make sense to any constitutionalist? Government by the people is an outdated concept, evidently.

I’,m sick to death of this aristocratic, ruling class, we now tolerate to run (re. destroy) our country.

It’s long past time to wake the sleeping giant of a republican democracy, and send these people home!

Tea party time!!!

donh525 on December 31, 2009 at 10:47 AM

Wait…”the system is a monopoly”?

@!?@?#?!?!?!

*facepalm*

Proud Rino on December 31, 2009 at 10:47 AM

You can’t use common sense and logic and facts with liberals, its way beyond their comprehension.

Mirimichi on December 31, 2009 at 10:47 AM

The left will always fall in line…look at germany…..

kill jews, ok…..

nondhimmie on December 31, 2009 at 10:44 AM

Stay classy.

Proud Rino on December 31, 2009 at 10:48 AM

Oh now I remember why I don’t watch CNN.

Inarticulate bumbling conservative and smarmy bitchy liberal.

panzerkardinal on December 31, 2009 at 10:50 AM

Oh now I remember why I don’t watch CNN.

Inarticulate bumbling conservative and smarmy bitchy liberal

panzerkardinal on December 31, 2009 at 10:51 AM

BTW this may too nuanced for liberal bloggers, but “a monopoly” is not illegal. Monopolization, ie monopolistic conduct is illegal. Monopolies can oftentimes just be good businesses that are run well. If they do anticompetitive things to preserve their monopolies, that’s illegal, but just being a big company is not a violation of the Sherman Act.

Proud Rino on December 31, 2009 at 10:52 AM

And can you imagine the prices and selection one would find at a Congressdale’s, anyway?

Here is a sample,

Very Nice

conservnut on December 31, 2009 at 10:55 AM

Let me see if I understand Taylor: because repubs have pointed out the large number of a-holes masquerading as lawyers, they are barred from going to court?

effn douchebag

Lonetown on December 31, 2009 at 10:56 AM

All we ever need to know about nationalized healthcare

PS – A great comedy series. Should be required viewing for all political science, public administration, and journalism majors.

bluelightbrigade on December 31, 2009 at 11:01 AM

This would be laugh out loud funny if so many people weren’t hurting so unnecessarily.

sheriff246 on December 31, 2009 at 11:01 AM

But they don’t agree…They’ve come to the same conclusion.

Proud Rino on December 31, 2009 at 10:44 AM

Most of us would call that agreeing. In the end, either the bill will pass or it will not, and that is what matters, not the reasons any legislator has for voting one way or the other. The bill is what would become law, not the rationale.

jwolf on December 31, 2009 at 11:06 AM

Striped unis for the opposition and black unis for supporters.

thomasaur on December 31, 2009 at 10:22 AM

Brown shirts.

Kafir on December 31, 2009 at 11:13 AM

Most of us would call that agreeing.

jwolf on December 31, 2009 at 11:06 AM

Husband: I would like to sell this condo and move into a house. We need more space.

Wife: I would also like to sell this condo and join a cult where we worship an Owl. I’m glad we agree!

Husband: You’re an idiot.

In the end, either the bill will pass or it will not, and that is what matters, not the reasons any legislator has for voting one way or the other. The bill is what would become law, not the rationale.

That’s true, but these aren’t legislators, they’re “experts,” and their reasoning is really all that’s important here. If everyone hates the bill because it’s not liberal enough, then that’s not exactly a victory for conservatives. That’s not what’s happening, but we should at least be honest about the debate.

Proud Rino on December 31, 2009 at 11:14 AM

…just being a big company is not a violation of the Sherman Act.

Proud Rino on December 31, 2009 at 10:52 AM

Quite right. On the other hand, it is a dangerous position because it makes the company a fat target for any influential politician who wants to prove how “progressive” he is. There are plenty of these within the current administration and congressional leadership.

jwolf on December 31, 2009 at 11:15 AM

Stay classy.

Proud Rino on December 31, 2009 at 10:48 AM

If you own a dictionary, please look up “irony”.

MarkTheGreat on December 31, 2009 at 11:16 AM

Monopolies can oftentimes just be good businesses that are run well. If they do anticompetitive things to preserve their monopolies, that’s illegal, but just being a big company is not a violation of the Sherman Act.
Proud Rino on December 31, 2009 at 10:52 AM

A monopoly is:
1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
2 : exclusive possession or control
3 : a commodity controlled by one party

If they do anticompetitive things

Hard to do “anti-competitive things” – when there is no competition

just being a big company

- is not a monopoly

Oopsdaisy on December 31, 2009 at 11:20 AM

Proud Rino on December 31, 2009 at 11:14 AM

Your husband/wife discussion on the condo sale does not make your point at all, because although they agree on one action (sell the condo), they disagree on another very significant action, namely, where to move to next. In the case of the Marsh/Lewis “debate” they agree on the action to take but put forth very different reasons for it. I don’t think anyone is pretending the Marsh/Lewis discussion is a conservative victory. However, it may represent a piece of a victory for the whole country — that Obamacare is so badly designed that it generates distaste and disgust from such differing viewpoints.

jwolf on December 31, 2009 at 11:24 AM

A monopoly is:
1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
2 : exclusive possession or control
3 : a commodity controlled by one party

Right.

If they do anticompetitive things

Hard to do “anti-competitive things” – when there is no competition

Wrong. You can do things to prevent or discourage competitors from entering the market, and that is illegal.

just being a big company

- is not a monopoly

Oopsdaisy on December 31, 2009 at 11:20 AM

Yes, I’m assuming she meant oligopoly (I guess), but what I meant was that a firm can have “monopoly power,” which doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s the only firm in the market, but instead one that has the power to control prices or exclude competition.

Proud Rino on December 31, 2009 at 11:29 AM

Ah, the sweet smell of unity.

I usually hate bipartianship, but I can go along with this.

WashJeff on December 31, 2009 at 11:32 AM

that Obamacare is so badly designed that it generates distaste and disgust from such differing viewpoints.

jwolf on December 31, 2009 at 11:24 AM

Yes, for entirely different reasons.

Proud Rino on December 31, 2009 at 11:33 AM

those hyperventilating about monopolies should be asked why they’re pushing a government monopoly as a solution to the nonexistent monopolies they seek to demolish.

Wow! Ed nails it!!

TN Mom on December 31, 2009 at 11:34 AM

What is more of a monopoly: the health insurance industry or the K-12 education industry?

The K-12 education industry needs some serious competition and have its government mandated revenue source removed.

WashJeff on December 31, 2009 at 11:34 AM

that Obamacare is so badly designed that it generates distaste and disgust from such differing viewpoints.

jwolf on December 31, 2009 at 11:24 AM

Yes, for entirely different reasons.

Proud Rino on December 31, 2009 at 11:33 AM

Sort of proves that our current health care laws are bipartisan. Either the we go more statists or more free market if we are going to make changes. No reason for one political party to support the other since each wants to go in opposite directions.

WashJeff on December 31, 2009 at 11:37 AM

apologize….just watched War and Remembrance….scenes of germans eating ice cream and enjoying the ditch filling and shooting of jews. Left will always be left…don’t listen to their whines.

nondhimmie on December 31, 2009 at 11:37 AM

Sort of proves that our current health care laws are bipartisan. Either the we go more statists or more free market if we are going to make changes. No reason for one political party to support the other since each wants to go in opposite directions.

WashJeff on December 31, 2009 at 11:37 AM

Exactly. And it provides evidence (but definitely does not prove) that the bill is a compromise, since it’s pissing off wingnuts of all stripes. But I’m generally with you – if you want something to suck, get a big bipartisan compromise product.

Proud Rino on December 31, 2009 at 11:40 AM

Forget about the ‘selection’ and ‘prices’ at Congressdale’s…can anyone or does anyone want the fathom the amazing CUSTOMER SERVICE…(think post office)…

Ltlgeneral64 on December 31, 2009 at 11:43 AM

What is more of a monopoly: the health insurance industry or the K-12 education industry?

The K-12 education industry needs some serious competition and have its government mandated revenue source removed.

WashJeff on December 31, 2009 at 11:34 AM

Neither is really a monopoly. The health insurance industry might be an oligopoly or a cartel (I really don’t know), but unless there’s a firm that can set prices or exclude competition, there’s no evidence of monopolization.

The government provides public education, but the government is (obviously) exempt from antitrust laws. But they’re not trying to drive private schools out of business or do anything anticompetitive anyway. I do wish the school voucher program would expand, though.

Proud Rino on December 31, 2009 at 11:44 AM

The problem is most of these sheep that spout the need for “competition” from private insurance (AKA government involvement) are just too stupid or ignorant to understand how wrong they are. Sorry, but there is no other answer. There’s many insurance companies, but only one government.

search4truth on December 31, 2009 at 11:47 AM

BTW, given the current laws forbidding health insurance companies from competing across state lines, the Lib-tards cannot possibly argue any basis for any provision in Obama-care based on the Commerce Clause. Even if Congress actually were constitutionally permitted to regulate private interstate commerce (vs. commerce among the “several States”), this is, under current law, NOT interstate commerce.

fyzycyst on December 31, 2009 at 11:51 AM

This “legal challenge” before the bill has passed both houses has absolutely no hopes of going any where and the Democrats love that this is diverting attention and taking up time in the discussion.

The health bill (of some sort) will pass within the first 3 weeks of January.

albill on December 31, 2009 at 11:56 AM

But they’re not trying to drive private schools out of business or do anything anticompetitive anyway.
Proud Rino on December 31, 2009 at 11:44 AM

The government is not directly trying to crush private schools, but the lack of vouchers, or more robust school choice ideas, has that effect.

Now the Teachers Unions on the other hand, they are definitely are trying to crush private and charter schools.

The school choice system that we have in most of this country is based on wealth and income. The more you have, the more schools you have to choose. The government enforce link between choice and income should be removed. I would think the “party for the people” would be for this.

WashJeff on December 31, 2009 at 11:57 AM

The left is worried about price-fixing with an insurance ‘monopoly’ but that’s ridiculous because the states sign off on any and all health insurance pricing.

The states mandate what insurers should cover and then sign off on the ensuing premium hike.

What the ‘monopoly’ DOES do is allow insurers to share information in order to reduce fraud and abuse.

The left doesn’t know what it’s talking about. Even crazy Lawrence O’Donnell said the ‘price fixing’ is a red herring.
(On morning Joe a few weeks ago)

MaggiePoo on December 31, 2009 at 12:05 PM

The government is not directly trying to crush private schools, but the lack of vouchers, or more robust school choice ideas, has that effect.

Yeah, but the government is not obligated to help private industry – like I said, I think it would be a good idea too.

The school choice system that we have in most of this country is based on wealth and income. The more you have, the more schools you have to choose. The government enforce link between choice and income should be removed. I would think the “party for the people” would be for this.

WashJeff on December 31, 2009 at 11:57 AM

Well, I think the concern is that it doesn’t help kids whose parents can’t afford private school even with the vouchers, and if you pull all those kids out of public schools, then public schools would all become like public schools in the inner city – ie, farces. It’s a valid concern – I think the positives outweigh the negatives, but I can see the argument.

Proud Rino on December 31, 2009 at 12:05 PM

Doesn’t matter. Dems will unite behind it, no matter how much it stinks. It’s enabling the additions later that counts. Dems want to put up the cabin now while they can, so they can add the mansion later.

petefrt on December 31, 2009 at 12:12 PM

The left is worried about price-fixing with an insurance ‘monopoly’ but that’s ridiculous because the states sign off on any and all health insurance pricing.

Price fixing is when firms agree to set prices at a certain rate for (presumably) the benefit of all of the companies (and the detriment of the consumer). It’s generally not associated with a monopoly, because it’s a horizontal agreement amongst competitors.

What the ‘monopoly’ DOES do is allow insurers to share information in order to reduce fraud and abuse.

LOL, that actually *could* be an antitrust violation, but that depends on whether they’re giving each other information that is not publicly available and whether they give private information prior to setting prices, because that would suggest that they’re engaging in price fixing.

Given that the profit margins of health insurance companies are so low, I sort of find it hard to believe that they’re engaging in price fixing, although I’ll admit I know very little about the health insurance industry.

Proud Rino on December 31, 2009 at 12:14 PM

And those hyperventilating about monopolies should be asked why they’re pushing a government monopoly as a solution to the nonexistent monopolies they seek to demolish.

Because they are lying. They are knowingly and intentionally attempting to deceive people. I know the “L” word is taboo in politics, but it’s time to break it out again.

forest on December 31, 2009 at 12:14 PM

Proud Rino on December 31, 2009 at 12:05 PM

Yeah, but the government is not obligated to help private industry – like I said, I think it would be a good idea too.

Nor do I want it do. I hate subsides at the federal level. State governments are expected by it citizens to help people. I do not take the view that vouchers are helping private schools, they are helping people.

Personally, I do not think vouchers go far enough. I would rather see that all schools are private and must compete for students and their tuition. The state should provide the parents of K-12 residents a scholarshop subsidy. For example, the state provides $8000 in a year to the parent of a high school student for the exclusive use to pay for tuition at a school of their choice. If the school costs less, the parent can save the excess for future educational expenses. If it costs more, the parent or charities can make up the difference.

This would totally divorce wealth from school choice. I would guess that the biggest opponent of this kind of plan, besides the teachers, would be rich people. I would guess many wealthy people like the segragation that having schools tied to communities\property taxes provides.

WashJeff on December 31, 2009 at 12:25 PM

Video: Taylor Marsh, Matt Lewis agree … ObamaCare is a disaster

Who and who?

Never heard of them and don’t care what they have to say.

UltimateBob on December 31, 2009 at 10:39 AM

-
+1

diogenes on December 31, 2009 at 12:26 PM

LOL, that actually *could* be an antitrust violation, but that depends on whether they’re giving each other information that is not publicly available and whether they give private information prior to setting prices, because that would suggest that they’re engaging in price fixing.

Proud Rino on December 31, 2009 at 12:14 PM

My familiy’s business is collision repair. Obviously, we have to deal with insurance companies daily. The collision repair industry trade group has a long battle to get the federal government to drop anti-trust protection that it grants insurance companies. Specifically, insurance companies are allow to share repair costs and labor rates they offer collision repair. The fun part, collision repair shops cannot share\discuss labor rates between other repair shops. That would be collusion.

I love big government. /sarc

WashJeff on December 31, 2009 at 12:37 PM

Video: Taylor Marsh, Matt Lewis agree …
Never heard of either one of these people…

OmahaConservative on December 31, 2009 at 10:21 AM

Don’t know about Matt Lewis,
but you must surely remember when
Taylor Marsh was humiliated by Kanye West at the Grammys.

mrt721 on December 31, 2009 at 12:44 PM

You guys don’t know who Matt is?

Ed can give inform you properly, should know him personally since he was at the blogger’s convention.

He should be on YouTube or on the files here, since he gave a speech. Everything was related on the bloggers’ experiences and news, plus conservatism.

ProudPalinFan on December 31, 2009 at 12:57 PM