I would disagree (and others share this view) that the economic collapse was the result of unregulated markets. It was the result of bad regulation (e.g., the CRA of '95 caused the amount of mortgages issued that were subprime to jump from 1% to 12% by '98 alone) and bad government interference (e.g., low interest rates under Greenspan made money too cheap for too long). Greed was indeed a huge factor, but it came from directions that aren't currently being fingered. Now, I'm not going to defend all private institutions: AIG, for one quick example, had some sketchy things going on that definitely need looking into.

But, for the most part, I am skeptical of any kind of central planning. I believe the federal government should stay out of things like health insurance. If Washington didn't help create the current environment where we rely so much on employer-based health insurance, maybe we would have individual health savings accounts and costs wouldn't have gotten so out of control because individuals would actually care what they were paying. And, in turn, hospitals would actually care what they are charging (i.e., competition).

I mean, just read the Wikipedia page on HSAs to get a feel for how complicated one tiny part of our system is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account. I don't feel comfortable having this system reformed so quickly (especially when these bills aren't being read!). So much of the motives behind the current movement are purely political. I would rather take it slow and have a real, honest look at the problems from both sides.

I think the ultimate obstacle is that we perceive America to be as free market as it gets, but that notion is, in reality, so far from the truth. This belief seems to render any free-market approach to reform as "out-dated" or "pro status quo".

Sorry if I got off-topic. I've been trying to keep my political thoughts off of HN for too long. :)

This is commonly thrown around:

I believe the federal government should stay out of things like health care.

The government's not trying to provide health care. It's trying to provide health insurance, which the private market has shown itself to be incapable of providing for 50 million Americans.

Of course our Congressmen/women aren't going to be performing medical procedures on us (thank God, ha). You know what I meant. I'll edit it for you though. :)

And again, I don't believe you can blame private insurers for that. The government is largely to blame for rising costs.

(BTW throwing that figure around opens up a whole 'nother can of worms, but I'll not go there)

I'm not really sure what you're saying here. But I don't think you can blame government for rising costs. I think it's natural for an advanced society that has already found a cheap way to provide necessities like food to start spending a larger and larger portion of its income on things like health care and education.

There are certainly things the government could do to reduce costs though, like reigning in lawsuits through tort reform. Ironically I think having the government provide insurance for a lot of people will reduce costs as well. The government has way less overhead and doesn't care about making a profit. I know that sounds counter intuitive but think about it from the standpoint of costs to the consumer.

We already have Medicaid and Medicare. I've read so much about their role in the rising costs of health care that I wouldn't even know where to start.

I like Mankiw's thoughts on the public option: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/06/whats-point-of-public...

I actually take this back. Obama uses this wording as well, because he is trying to bring down the costs of health care, too. Regulating the insurance industry effects the prices of health care (sometimes negatively). I wish I could explain this better.