Healthcare Debate Flashback

CNBC's Mark Haines suddenly died this week, so some videos have been put on the web to celebrate his "take no prisoners" approach to dealing with guests on his show. Here's an example from August 2009 where he doesn't let Martin Feldstein from Harvard make some ridiculous complaints about the Democrat's health care plan.

Haines nails him with this one perceptive point: "Your argument is something that is easy to make by somebody who has money." Feldstein sees the world only from the lofty air of a rich Harvard professor who ignores the fact that a third of the people have no health care because they can't afford it. For Feldstein that isn't "rationing" that is a "choice". Yeah, sure...



Feldstein ends with the ridiculous claim that a health care plan would remove the ability of the rich to pick doctor, treatment, etc. Nonsense. The rich will always have choices. The whole point of the health care bill was to remove the lack of choice for those without the money. They don't get treatment because they can't afford it. That is a terrible "choice" but Martin Feldstein is quite happy with that kind of "choice".

Here's a bit from a September 2008 interview, he has it with a right wing spin doctor and comes right out and says "I find that one-sided crap insulting":



I like the way Mark Haines called them as he saw them. This reminds me of the classic joke about three umpires discussing their role in the game of baseball.

• The first umpire says, “When the pitcher pitches there are strikes and there are balls, and I call them as they are.”


• The second umpire says, “When the pitcher pitches there are strikes and there are balls, and I call them as I see them.”


• The third umpire says, “When the pitcher pitches there are strikes and there are balls, but they are nothing until I call them.”

I'm almost willing to say that these comments and their commentary was nothing until Mark Haines called it.