Unfortunately, both the Washington Post and McCain have it wrong about deregulation of the insurance industry. My own definition of deregulation does not equal the “deregulation” of political rhetoric, nor of journalistic lingo. The insurance industry is not lacking in regulations (deregulation), and that’s where the politicians and journalists get the story wrong. The insurance industry, instead, is the beneficiary of the WRONG regulations that build in protections from the ups and downs of the marketplace at the expense of consumers. McCain still needs to be converted (as do 99.9% of the other politicians) to free market principles in the insurance industry. The insurance industry lobbyists have so distorted the discourse about the insurance industry, that the politicians can’t even think straight when they think about insurance. The trial lawyers, also, distort any discussion of insurance. The laws regarding insurance make it a gold mine for trial lawyers, utopia for scheming insurers, and a nightmare for consumers. Unfortunately, far too many of our representatives in Congress are lawyers. Legislative branches at all levels of government–Federal, state, and local–should be microcosms of the population at large (something I’m sure you and I can agree with at the gender level or at the race level, but in this case, I’m talking more about a sufficiently diverse legislative body at the occupational level). The end result is that we get insurance laws that carve out a special niche for that industry, allowing insurance firms to pursue a selfishly reckless course that was designed to be remedied only on a case-by-case basis in civil court rather than by marketplace forces or by unambiguous, even-handed legislation. The insurance industry hasn’t really pushed for deregulation, in my sense of the word. Instead, they’ve always pushed for wrong regulations where conflicts are only resolved through arbitration and litigation, not in legislative chambers, and certainly not in the marketplace.

Unfortunately, when it comes to insurance, none of the politicians running for President have any clue, and I include the minor party and independent candidates in that group. I predict that even with a new regulation regime put forth by McCain or Obama, the problems with the insurance industry will not be solved, because lawyers and insurance lobbyists will continue to warp the discourse on reform. Ultimately, after several years have passed, I predict that politicians will try to solve the insurance dilemma by socializing the industry, absorbing it into quasi-governmental entities, which is a solution far inferior to a free-market solution, but to get to free-market solutions would be like pushing water uphill because special interests have erected bulwarks of resistance to free-market solutions.

McCain, however, has shown greater desire for reform, greater capacity for reform, and a better track record of reform than Obama. Obama has only broken ranks with the Democrats on 3% of the votes that have come before the U.S. Senate, and he’s broken ranks to take a more leftward position just as much as he’s broken ranks to take a more centrist position. With all of Obama’s talk of unity, how am I supposed to feel a sense of unity with a person who would only vote with the centrists 1.5% of the time? Also, with Obama’s reforms, the socializing of industries into quasi-governmental bodies would occur at an accelerated pace, which, in my mind, is the wrong direction of reform, which is why I resist his recipe of reform.

So – before you continue to promote McCain the way you suggest here, shouldn’t you say a few words about that? Or at least, find a way to reconcile it with your arguments?

It’s one thing to say that the system is rampant with it but your guy is clean and it’s another thing to say the system is rampant in it and here’s what he’s going to do to change it.

NPR was on it this morning too – listen < ahref="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94699066">here when audio is up. (It’s just what came on while I was typing this – I’m sure WSJ and other more conservative media will have reports on this too.)

I don’t know, Daniel…this doesn’t seem to be the strongest way to go.