7 Responses to “Crunchy Conservatism in Practice”

1. Matt C, on August 12th, 2009 at 12:34 pm Said:

   Um..how quickly can we get this guy in front of Congress?

   And my wife always thought Whole Foods was a left-wing outlet. Hah! I’m going there to get my ingredients for dinner tonight.

2. John Schwenkler, on August 12th, 2009 at 12:55 pm Said:

   And my wife always thought Whole Foods was a left-wing outlet.

   No, Mackie has always been a big libertarian.

3. Ratufa, on August 12th, 2009 at 4:52 pm Said:

   As a list of a few (possibly) good policy proposals, such as making health savings accounts more attractive, Mackey’s article is OK.

   As something that seriously addresses problems like the growth of Medicare spending or the difficulties people with pre-existing conditions have in getting insurance, it’s laughable hand-waving.

   As for his sloppy talk about “rights”, or his claim that we should be able to live disease-free lives well into our 90s and even past 100, the less said the better.

   As a set of proposals, I think that this:

   http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care

   is much more interesting, though perhaps not “crunchy” nor conservative enough for many people.

4. Cord, on August 12th, 2009 at 8:23 pm Said:

   Mackey’s ideas sound good in theory. Too bad the lobbyists and special interests will fight against increased competition or changes to the status quo just as hard as they are now. And the end result of such reform will be 2 or 3 large insurers controlling the market. I doubt folks would see much in the way of more affordable premiums.

   As Ratufa mentioned, Mackey leaves out any reforms that would deal with pre-existing conditions, recissions, or medical bankruptcies.

   I figure most people would be happy with reforms that achieve all of the above.

5. Matt Weber, on August 13th, 2009 at 4:58 am Said:

   He might not mention pre-existing conditions because, being a businessman, he realizes there is absolutely no sense whatsoever in insuring people who have pre-existing conditions. It’s like trying to get car insurance after you’ve wrecked your car. If this was possible, then why would anyone buy insurance before having a wreck?

6. Robert, on August 13th, 2009 at 7:31 am Said:

   While I might not agree with every aspect of Mr. Mackey’s plan, at least it is concrete and debatable, which is more than I can say for the nonsense being spewed daily at the townhall meetings.

   The people showing up at these townhall meetings and the politicians that are inflaming their acrimony are not interested in addressing the fact that the current system is untennable, rather they simply want to score poltical points against a president who they view as illegitmate.

   Admittedly, I fall somewhere on the left of the political spectrum; however, my main concern is that the health care crisis be solved. If this can be accomplished via something similar to Mr. Mackey’s plan, or something similar to the Swiss system (which my wife and I were quite happy with when we lived there) then so be it. However, I don’t see any Republicans other than Bob Dole actively engaging in the debate, instead we get nonsensical proclamations about death panels from Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich.

7. Cord, on August 13th, 2009 at 2:22 pm Said:

   Matt: You’re exactly right about that. But, in that case one could still offer comprehensive insurance and simply not cover the pre-existing condition.

   Of course, the minute this happens to any one us we might rethink things a bit. Or maybe not.