Many Economists Back McCain, but More Are Silent

“His [policies] are the least horrible,” said James F. Smith of Western Carolina University and Parsec Financial Management.

The Wall Street Journal survey also extracted some opinion on candidates policies:

Almost half of the economists in the latest Wall Street Journal forecasting survey decided against answering a question on which presidential candidate offers the most responsible fiscal policies. However, Sen. John McCain was the clear favorite of those who answered the question. Twenty-one economists of 75% of the respondents chose the Republican contender. However, they weren’t exactly enthusiastic. “His [policies] are the least horrible,” said James F. Smith of Western Carolina University and Parsec Financial Management.

Personally, I think McCain’s proposed health care policy is pretty good — much better than “least horrible”.

Cato’s Michael Tanner summarized the McCain plan nicely

While it’s possible to pick at the details and flaws in Sen. McCain’s proposal, he get’s the big picture right. By moving away from employer-based health care and encouraging more competition, Sen. McCain’s plan would go a long way toward reducing health care costs, improving quality, and increasing access to care. It may not be perfect, but it is far, far better than anything suggested by Sens. Obama or Clinton.

Tanner has a short op-ed here: McCain’s Health Care Plan: Radical and Right, and for complete background on what ails US medical care, Tanner’s book is a good pick: Healthy Competition: What’s Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It.

OTOH, the Clinton/McCain gas tax holiday is just stupid. I don’t think McCain is stupid, but I don’t like to have to classify a policy as “pure pandering”, the only other explanation.

1 Response to “Many Economists Back McCain, but More Are Silent”


  1. 1 Gary Ghertner

    It is pure folly to think the free market can improve health care. Just look at the mess we’ve gotten into with for-profit health insurance. Withholding care is good for the bottom line; how can that possibly improve patient health?

    The US spends 30% of it’s health care dollars for administrative overhead; McCain’s plan does nothing to reduce this cost.

    McCain’s plan for covering the otherwise uninsurable will turn out to cost more than his wildest dreams. Furthermore, insurance companies would become even more selective in weeding out the ’sick’. I have a friend (who’s a Bushie/McCain-ie) with a lymphoma-stricken daughter who will lose her employer-based health coverage with McCain’s plan … what a sad irony.

Leave a Reply






Bad Behavior has blocked 2451 access attempts in the last 7 days.