![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
mijopo.livejournal.comI stumbled across an interesting article, "How FDR Enacted his 'Public Option'", comparing the attempt to address problems in health care distribution with the Rural Electrification Administration that FDR set up. I think the author believes that the implementation of the REA and its success in helping to realize more complete distribution of electrical power, provides historical evidence for the claims that:
Right wing nut jobs Keenly analytic and well read market defenders, (l love that thing ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
htpcl does), please tell me why this isn't evidence that government intervention is a reasonable solution to situations in which market forces have proven incapable of addressing distribution problems.
a) government intervention in the markets can work effectively to address problems of incomplete/inadequate distribution of a good or service
b) a government backed competitor in the marketplace can be efficient and push private competitors to increased efficiency.
c) Obama should stop worrying so much about bipartisanship, the lobby groups, and even the Democratic pussies in Congress
d) The threat that government intervention poses to our economic system and the principles upon which it is based tend to get grossly exaggerated in these situations.
e) People were nasty then, but nastier now. The democratic process is now dirtier and meaner with lying and threats to life, etc.
I'm inclined to agree with (a)-(d). (e) is less clear to me. I think people are more stupid now, I blame MTV, X-Box and youtube, I don't think they lie or threaten murder any more than they did, though. Nonetheless, I think the REA does provide reason to think that the public option in health care could do all the things its proponents think it could do. b) a government backed competitor in the marketplace can be efficient and push private competitors to increased efficiency.
c) Obama should stop worrying so much about bipartisanship, the lobby groups, and even the Democratic pussies in Congress
d) The threat that government intervention poses to our economic system and the principles upon which it is based tend to get grossly exaggerated in these situations.
e) People were nasty then, but nastier now. The democratic process is now dirtier and meaner with lying and threats to life, etc.
htpcl does), please tell me why this isn't evidence that government intervention is a reasonable solution to situations in which market forces have proven incapable of addressing distribution problems.
