Richard Epstein, Opening Remarks

Epstein says government regulations in the health sector have caused employer-provided coverage to decline in recent years. He calls government the greatest enemy to providing health care to individuals because they often mandate things into plans (like good neonatal, alcohol, and mental health coverage) that the consumer does not want. Employers do not like these mandates, so they will eventually pull out of the system, leaving people to fend for themselves. You cannot balance the accounts for what the Pro team wants to do. The main question is this: can we do better by a system of competitive markets and liberalization or do we do better by having more regulation? His answer is to deregulate.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• NDDS
• Miller
• Center
• Faneuil
• healthcare
• health
• insurance
• Armey
• Epstein
• Bigby
• Herzlinger
• Dentzer

[PatMarine]

I adore Epstein.

[snowtrot]

Epstein is a libertarian with a genius iq. Far from Bush. Are you saying that Bush is (or at least acted anything like) a genius or a libertarian during his tenure?

[EasyEs]

@MSimky Poor look at the numbers. First of all they are not the same systems. These systems don't create of develope health care they just ration it. Second health care is a blanket term of little use. If you are looking at individual services that are the same the market delivered services are by in far cheaper and easier to acess. Americans spend far more on cars and homes as well. You are looking at data with out understanding where it comes from.

[MrBuddickman]

Doesn't use a teleprompter. Lol. This guy s a genius!

[MrRebelHays]

YES this is exactly what i'm talking about GREAT opening 5 stars!!!! wow nice job

[runawaymotor]

@Offatwork Never thought of it that way.

[myhipsi]

@MSimky

you're partly right, a fully government run health care system is more efficient than a mixed system (like the U.S.). However, a fully free market system would be exponentially more efficient than both, and more importantly, sustainable. Costs would come down dramatically and innovation would explode.

"Markets have never worked for healthcare" - You'll be proven wrong when wasteful, inefficient public systems around the world collapse in the next decade or two. Mark my words.

[leereyno]

This is what a real intellectual sounds like. Notice he doesn't use a teleprompter.

[MSimky]

This guy is all ideology and no facts. No matter what the question is, no matter what the facts show, his answer is always: less regulation! Ta Da!

Do a little research. Government run or government regulated healthcare systems around the world are more efficient, less expensive, and more effective than the healthcare system in the U.S. Look at Europe, Canada, Japan, Taiwan.

Markets have never worked for healthcare. Only ideologues disagree.

[Offatwork]

@MrApples6

The problem is that this thought process entirely backwards. By and large, monopoly power does not correlate with deregulation. What DOES correlate with deregulation is higher risk. And, in the same light, greater levels of monopoly power correlate with lower risk. So the notion that a government can tackle monopoly power and risk is an, all-together, a contradictory statement. A mere political talking point used to "rally the troops."

[MrApples6]

Ron Paul with a law professorship. I've lived through and paid for junk bond/m&a scandals, S&L deregulation and collapse, Enron, and AIG/Lehman/citibank bailouts - and that's just my life. Deregulation leads to two things: monopoly power and speculation. Combined, it leads to too big too fail, which means I have to get out my checkbook every 8 or 9 years to cover the tab. What fool, 3 or 4 times burned, would listen to such obvious tried and failed notion.