4 ms·
This stands in stark contrast to the political alternative. In our democracy, politicians are committed public servants who universally put the long-range well-
by CWuestefeld 17y ago
This stands in stark contrast to the political alternative. In our democracy, politicians are committed public servants who universally put the long-range well-being of the republic ahead of their own political interest. In this way we benefit from their wisdom, shown time and again to be superior to that of conventional public opinion, having carefully weighed and integrated the best ideas from leaders in every field.
</sarcasm>
Seriously, do you think that the US today is a free market? I challenge you to show me one area of endeavor that's not subject to government regulation.
The history of health insurance is completely dependent on government meddling. In the past, people were not dependent on their employers or any public assistance for healthcare. It was generally funded by the patients themselves, with help from mutual-aid organizations like churches and unions.
It was FDR's socialist wage freezes that forced companies to find other ways to compete for the most talented employees (the market always finds a way, despite government interference[1]). The way the income tax worked, offering healthcare benefits was advantageous. Thus, the government warped the existing market and changed the expectations of people. Now employees gripe that employees are greedy by not paying more and more for medical coverage -- but their offering any coverage at all is a very recent development.
[1] This is pretty much always true. Why do people drive gas-sucking SUVs today? Because CAFE regulations in the '70s killed the family station wagon, but exempted cars. People want big vehicles, and found a way around the regulations. And the work-around was worse than what we had initially.
- michael_dorfman 17y agoWhy do people drive gas-sucking SUVs today? Because CAFE regulations in the '70s killed the family station wagon, but exempted cars. People want big vehicles, and found a way around the regulations. And the work-around was worse than what we had initially. In that case, the problem is that the CAFE regulations weren't broad enough-- not that someone tried to regulate the market. "Government meddling" is necessary, and desirable.
- grandalf 17y agosee my comment on government subsidy of oil and burb living, which is a sister to yours.
- grandalf 17y agoPeople drive gas-sucking SUVs because our government did the following: 1) built a massive interstate highway system that made it cheaper to live in the burbs where mass transit was not needed. and 2) because our government wages oil wars that essentially subsidize the price of petroleum.
- larrywright 17y agoThat might explain why people drive cars rather than taking mass transit, but it does not explain people's preference for larger cars like SUVs.
- grandalf 17y agoTrue, but it doesn't have to. The root of the problem is the vast number of cars on the road. Much of the emissions from a car come from the manufacture of the car, not just the use of it. When you think of the wisdom behind millions of cars sitting in rush hour gridlock (on government designed roads), emitting smoke and chemicals into the environment and wasting hours of drivers' valuable time, think of the grand purpose -- so that people can live in the suburbs at an artificially low price.
- CWuestefeld 17y agoSorry, edit to the above after the deadline. I said "CAFE regulations in the '70s killed the family station wagon, but exempted cars" What I meant was "CAFE regulations in the '70s killed the family station wagon, but exempted trucks"