this alone would be tremendously troubling to a more educated population.

i am unsure of your age, but in pleading the case for “reforming” a hopelessly broken system (see the entitlement bomb) you sound like a resigned old cad. frum and his ideas for “reforming” the welfare state are ludicrous. if any of the ideas work, it will be very mildly, and for an extremely limited duration. at that point, all the energy spent on petty, purposeless reforms will be wasted, as a new crises emerges and the statists take more ground.

what we need is severe distinctions between principles and approaches. we need people who are conversant in classical political economy, and able to rebut their opponents with wit and fact. we need a populist who can deliver on the promises – liberty, after all, is popular.

the nature of interventionism is like the nature of whack-a-mole. you hit down one problem to prop up another, worse problem, until there is a legitimate political crisis. we’ve seen this in the 1930s and 1970s. while it is attractive to think of obama as carter, whomever as the eventual reagan, i don’t think hastening our decline into carterism or new dealism (like frum does, regularly) is particularly wise, intelligent, or benevolent. i think it’s imprudent, for precisely the reason stated in the title of this article: OBAMACARE. such programs never go away – we’re still stuck with social security, medicare, medicaid, schip, etc., all while the country has ~$60 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

what kind of nation does that to its youth? you may live in canada, and not care very much because you don’t pay into the tax system here, but millions upon millions of americans are going to see a massive cut to benefits. a government propagated lie that i can’t rightly support in any form.

the welfare state doesn’t work because it can’t work. it will collapse in on its own weight. i’d rather say what i can now than make meek, bland, and compromising suggestions that only obfuscate the problem.

Besides all that bullshit about peace of mind and security (which no matter how much you will it, can never be accomplished outside of productive work, which the private sector alone produces), you’ve read my last ~20 or so postings about further deregulating the industry, and claim i support the “status quo.” Dishonesty; no two ways about that!

Money is the medium of exchange; http://bastiat.org/en/what_is_money.html
Capital resources are what enables production;
“Capital,” in the vulgar, imprecise, and confusing sense, is money used to fund ventures;
(see here: http://www.fee.org/pdf/books/MarxismUnmasked.pdf …lecture #6)
Revenue is all money entering the firm;
Profit is what’s left (if anything) after costs.
(see here http://mises.org/daily/2321)

It isn’t so difficult.

The peace of mind knowing that they can never lose their health insurance, even if they become too sick to work, even if their employer goes bankrupt, even if their employer outsources their jobs to a foreign country. The peace of mind knowing that if they want to kiss their dead-end job goodbye and go into business for themselves, they will still be insured and can concentrate on building their new business instead of going begging for health care.

You just don’t get it.

The current system, which links your health insurance to your employment, is an anachronism in today’s dynamic economy. Free-market conservatives always championed “creative destruction” in a dynamic economy. But there’s nothing dynamic about being bound to your employer like a serf, afraid of losing your job because you won’t have the money to pay for your continuing health care or that of your dependents.

When conservatives used to champion a free-market approach to fixing this problem, at least they had a proposal on the table. But YOU seem to be championing the status quo. Given that this status quo was enacted by FDR as a quick fix for his wage-and-price controls, that’s really strange coming from a guy who quotes Mises.

Those “who fall through all cracks” include EVERYONE who lost their job due to severe illness, and as a result, lost their group health insurance too. Now they can’t purchase individual insurance due to a pre-existing condition. I would be one of them if it weren’t for RomneyCare.

That cohort includes tens of millions of people. It has to. Because the longer you live, the more likely you’ll get chronically sick. It’s that simple.

And private charity can’t afford to take on all those cases. Consider my situation. My first year of treatment cost in the neighborhood of $100,000, and future years look to be only slightly less expensive. Multiply that number by several million, and ask yourself where private charity is going to get the funds.

You developed your illness as a child, and your parents were still working, presumably already had insurance, and that paid for your medical bills. What if the situation had been reversed, and your PARENTS had become chronically ill and unable to work to support you? And if they had lost their insurance? What would have become of you then?