Theres a vast literature explaining all this. But you wont see that vast literature of law and economics, property rights economics, etc., etc., cited on the major networks — including Fox. Because media people, like lawyers, tend to be under-educated where education would really count. Its possible to watch five talking heads argue about important matters and not have one of them ever mention the important principles underlying the contentious matters they discuss.
And the progressives yammer blithely on. Their pride in their credentials, in their intentions, in their ideas, shows through. And that plays well on TV, even better than it did in the papers, when newspapers meant something.
But it doesnt give them what they want: ability. Set up health care markets? Yeah, thatll work.
For a while, maybe.
The mortgage aftermarkets invented by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac worked, too. For a while. But it was those government-created markets that imploded.
In the old days, your local bank held your mortgage. But economists (and other critics) thought that local mortgage markets were examples of market failure. Why not create a large aftermarket of securities? This would free up banks to . . .
Oh, lets not even finish that thought. The hubris of technical economists, like the hubris of pols and wonks and bureaucrats who call themselves liberal-progressives or worse, is such that they think the tacit knowledge that markets rely upon is somehow defective for being both local and hard to articulate. (The two parts of tacit they dont understand.) It's not just that they confuse the "knowing that" kind of knowledge learnt at college, and the "knowing how" kind of knowledge that comes from participation in a complex system like a real, live market. It gets even worse. There are perfectly smart people who somehow think its wrong for lenders to discriminate between people with sound financial practices and less sound finances. So of course government should step in and create something wholly new! What could go wrong?
I mean, besides everything?
Same with medical insurance. This is an industry utterly perverted by weird tax law and an even stranger history of regulation, including multiple mandates. In many states, ObamaCares innovation of requiring even old men to be placed in the same risk pool for pregnancy and natal care as young, fertile women is nothing new. The Left Coast states long ago forbade discrimination in price between men and fertile women. For medical insurance.
The consequences of this? Information ceases to be relevant. The very nature of insurance, which depends on actuarial risk, has been corrupted for decades. And now progressives want to make the corruption equal across all states. For equalitys sake, I guess.
But whatever reason they may give, the basic truth remains: They are the enemies of the information that makes a free society work.
And so they are now stumbling upon the creation of new, state-based marketplaces. We shouldnt be shocked to find people with almost no market experience — that is, no real-world producer experience, botching up the job of concocting new markets . . . markets and services based on heavily regulated standards that reek of we know best.
But they dont know squat. Every assertion of competence is a pretense of knowledge — the most relevant forms of which we are catching them in the very act of repressing.
ObamaCare will not end well for us, unless it ends. Period. [references]