PDA

View Full Version : Elections McCain: Let me do for healthcare what I've done for banking the last decade!!!!


jAZ
09-20-2008, 12:16 AM
Taken from a just published contribution by McCain to an actuarial journal clearly written before the meltdown this week.

http://www.contingencies.org/septoct08/mccain.pdf

"Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation."

Obama should hammer him with this quote for the next 2 months. How stupid do you have to be to put that quote in writing at any point in the last 2 months or so? Jezus.

Mecca
09-20-2008, 12:18 AM
I think John McCain has officially become Bob Dole at this point.

Pitt Gorilla
09-20-2008, 12:19 AM
Wow, the spin on this should be amazing.

Ebolapox
09-20-2008, 12:35 AM
jesus H. christ.

third party here I go!

(sorry. don't trust either canidate)

NewChief
09-20-2008, 06:57 AM
Ouch. That one could be a killer.

Programmer
09-20-2008, 06:59 AM
My God, I hope the hatred you have does not spill out to your family.

I challenge you to spend the time and look up Obama's activites in his enormous experience in the Senate. You will find that he is not the next coming as you think.

You will have to take off your blinders.

Mecca
09-20-2008, 07:01 AM
My God, I hope the hatred you have does not spill out to your family.

I challenge you to spend the time and look up Obama's activites in his enormous experience in the Senate. You will find that he is not the next coming as you think.

You will have to take off your blinders.

I find it disconcerting that I continue to hold on to the belief that America, and by extension humanity, will one day learn to correct our errors.

I react to my naivete with bewilderment and concern.

I fear and loathe living in a time where being stupid is the rule, not the exception, that the gene pool hasn't somehow rid itself of our lowliest inhabitants.

I stop to reconsider if any of us are worth saving.

Nightfyre
09-20-2008, 07:07 AM
over-riding state regulations? How very not conservative of you McCain. How quickly the pursuit of power hath made a totalitarian of thee.

patteeu
09-20-2008, 07:44 AM
How has "more vigorous nationwide competition" led to the current banking situation? I thought it was caused by prevalent lending practices and the secondary sales of creative mortgage-based instruments that served to cloud the risk picture for potential investors. And I understand that democrats were neck deep in these matters, correct?

jAZ
09-20-2008, 02:53 PM
How has "more vigorous nationwide competition" led to the current banking situation?
"opening up... more vigorous nationwide competition" isn't an action any politician can take. It's an outcome of some specific policy position.

jAZ
09-20-2008, 04:23 PM
I think this will be launched as a major talking point of the Obama's campaign starting on Monday. I heard he mentioned it today, but look for a lot more.

patteeu
09-20-2008, 07:40 PM
"opening up... more vigorous nationwide competition" isn't an action any politician can take. It's an outcome of some specific policy position.

My question remains unanswered. I'm not sure what your point is here.

splatbass
09-20-2008, 09:49 PM
My question remains unanswered. I'm not sure what your point is here.

Read this part:

would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation

In other words he wants to deregulate. Deregulation is behind the current mess.

Chiefshrink
09-21-2008, 01:29 AM
I think this will be launched as a major talking point of the Obama's campaign starting on Monday. I heard he mentioned it today, but look for a lot more.

I doubt very seriously if he is smart. Which he might, considering all his gaffes these last few months. 2nd highest with 3Bil in $$ taken from Fannie and Freddie in just the last 3yrs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Man I hope the hell he does bring it up because that sh** will just coming flying back in his face in more ways than he can imagine. Will all that said, the bottom line is that both Dems and Repubs got caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

It's just fortunate that the Dems lead the charge on this and it looks worse for them because they are larger in number on the take and Obama's economic/financial advisors were the ringleaders:shake:

Chiefshrink
09-21-2008, 01:35 AM
But it really comes down to greed which both sides showed this. I don't think Obama wants to touch this if he is smart. He can blame Bush and tie McCain to Bush on this but if he gets into specifics on these bad loans it will all come down to the "affirmative action housing" forced on Wall Street by the Dems and then the sh** will come back to Obama in a heartbeat.

patteeu
09-21-2008, 06:45 AM
Read this part:

would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation

In other words he wants to deregulate. Deregulation is behind the current mess.

Deregulation may or may not have played a role in the current mess, but you're going to have to walk me through how deregulation for the purpose of "opening up... more vigorous nationwide competition" caused it. It's an article of faith for liberals to believe that deregulation is bad, and to put the blame on deregulation for a problem like this, but I'm not interested in faith-based claims here. So if you can walk me through it, great. Otherwise, my question remains.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2008, 07:05 AM
Deregulation may or may not have played a role in the current mess, but you're going to have to walk me through how deregulation for the purpose of "opening up... more vigorous nationwide competition" caused it. It's an article of faith for liberals to believe that deregulation is bad, and to put the blame on deregulation for a problem like this, but I'm not interested in faith-based claims here. So if you can walk me through it, great. Otherwise, my question remains.

It was some deregulation of quasi-govt enterprises ( not real private enterprise) that operates within a fractional reserve banking system with govt back-up should they fail including FDIC under a monopoly system that operated with bad monetary policy and fiat money. Fiat means: from nothing.

There were also other new regulations put in and the CRA was beefed up more than it was in 1977.

Deregulation my arse.

It's operating under bad economic ideas.

Ideas have consequences.
This was predicted by other economists.

jAZ
09-21-2008, 08:20 AM
Deregulation may or may not have played a role in the current mess, but you're going to have to walk me through how deregulation for the purpose of "opening up... more vigorous nationwide competition" caused it. It's an article of faith for liberals to believe that deregulation is bad, and to put the blame on deregulation for a problem like this, but I'm not interested in faith-based claims here. So if you can walk me through it, great. Otherwise, my question remains.
Since McCain didn't specify exactly what regulations he would "de" and what he wouldn't "de", it's an article of faith on your part that his actions would in any way connect to the claimed objective.

That's the problem with "deregulation" talk. It's lots of broad claims "get government out of your way" talk, with lots of claimed theoretical outcomes that never match the results when theory is put into practice in the real world and it's imperfections.

jAZ
09-21-2008, 08:27 AM
But it really comes down to greed which both sides showed this. I don't think Obama wants to touch this if he is smart. He can blame Bush and tie McCain to Bush on this but if he gets into specifics on these bad loans it will all come down to the "affirmative action housing" forced on Wall Street by the Dems and then the sh** will come back to Obama in a heartbeat.
Greed is the reason you have rules and referees in sports.

It's the same reason you needed rules and referees in our economy.

Reaganomics seeks to remove the rules. Since they had already plucked the low hanging fruit cluminating in 1999, what's left was to put Al Davis in charge of picking the refs for the NFL.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2008, 08:58 AM
I think "regulation" is the wrong word here.

Regs that ensure a safe market, free from fraud, cooked books, or even a more than that are rational even in a free-market system. ( speaking generally here) These don't make it unfree or not laissez-faire. They maintain freedom as there is no freedom in chaos.

I think a better word is "interventionism" in markets by the govt for social engineering, equalizing outcomes even to maintain the false impression of utopia by stimulating markets/economy overall with monetary policy is what has caused this problem. The more govt or quasi govt institutions you have set up by govt to engage in creating desired political outcomes, the more regs you need.

So Glass-Steagall makes sense in the system we have. But Glass-Steagall makes no sense if these were fully private enterprises operating in a free-market. ( not to the exclusion of some rational regs as stated in my first line.) By that I also mean a free banking system, operating on 100% deposits, with rational and sound monetary policy. The latter must be kept separate from politicians or institutions set up by politicians that protect a class of people.

So the right target and word here is market interventionism. That does not work. Is not a free-market by any stretch of the imagination. And what we are getting for a solution, is more of the same bad policy and market intereventionism which will just stave off worse pain later. Glass-Steagall, CRA, F/F, dereg within this paradigm are all subsidiary to more basic ideas/policies. And yes, these are socialist leaning ideas.

BTW I found out the other day that Glass-Steagall's separation of commercial from investment banking was pushed by Rockefeller to get at his competitor Morgan. Ha!

patteeu
09-21-2008, 06:10 PM
Since McCain didn't specify exactly what regulations he would "de" and what he wouldn't "de", it's an article of faith on your part that his actions would in any way connect to the claimed objective.

That's the problem with "deregulation" talk. It's lots of broad claims "get government out of your way" talk, with lots of claimed theoretical outcomes that never match the results when theory is put into practice in the real world and it's imperfections.

That same problem exists with "change" talk.

Your point about McCain's lack of specificity, is a diversion afaic. I wasn't the person who vouched for the accuracy of McCain's claim. You were the person who's trying to pass it off as a major case of foot-in-mouth as though it has already been shown to be false.

Logical
09-21-2008, 08:04 PM
That same problem exists with "change" talk.

Your point about McCain's lack of specificity, is a diversion afaic. I wasn't the person who vouched for the accuracy of McCain's claim. You were the person who's trying to pass it off as a major case of foot-in-mouth as though it has already been shown to be false.

?
afaic
As Far as I Can Tell (what happened to the T)
As Far As I Can See (what happened to the s)

Or is it an acronym for something else?

Sully
09-21-2008, 08:11 PM
As far as I'm concerned.

Nightfyre
09-21-2008, 08:30 PM
I think "regulation" is the wrong word here.

Regs that ensure a safe market, free from fraud, cooked books, or even a more than that are rational even in a free-market system. ( speaking generally here) These don't make it unfree or not laissez-faire. They maintain freedom as there is no freedom in chaos.

I think a better word is "interventionism" in markets by the govt for social engineering, equalizing outcomes even to maintain the false impression of utopia by stimulating markets/economy overall with monetary policy is what has caused this problem. The more govt or quasi govt institutions you have set up by govt to engage in creating desired political outcomes, the more regs you need.

So Glass-Steagall makes sense in the system we have. But Glass-Steagall makes no sense if these were fully private enterprises operating in a free-market. ( not to the exclusion of some rational regs as stated in my first line.) By that I also mean a free banking system, operating on 100% deposits, with rational and sound monetary policy. The latter must be kept separate from politicians or institutions set up by politicians that protect a class of people.

So the right target and word here is market interventionism. That does not work. Is not a free-market by any stretch of the imagination. And what we are getting for a solution, is more of the same bad policy and market intereventionism which will just stave off worse pain later. Glass-Steagall, CRA, F/F, dereg within this paradigm are all subsidiary to more basic ideas/policies. And yes, these are socialist leaning ideas.

BTW I found out the other day that Glass-Steagall's separation of commercial from investment banking was pushed by Rockefeller to get at his competitor Morgan. Ha!
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Agree 110%!!!

Logical
09-21-2008, 09:14 PM
As far as I'm concerned.

Ah.... thanks.

RINGLEADER
09-22-2008, 11:18 PM
Another great example of Obama force-feeding only part of the story. The full context of what he said:

I would also allow individuals to choose to purchase health insurance across state lines, when they can find more affordable and attractive products elsewhere that they prefer. Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation. Consumer-friendly insurance policies will be more available and affordable when there is greater competition among insurers on a level playing field.