After the debate last night

You know, something has been on my mind for a long time - the difference between the conceptual proclamations and political speeches. And here is the crux of it.

One of the conceptual pillars on which US officially bases her life is free market and the right and the responsibility of each person to make decisions for him or herself. That is what the US likes to officially promote around the world as essential components of freedom.

Well, then I hear so much about health care and the health insurance business associated with it and the home foreclosures situation. These are by no means isolated examples of the conflict between political proclamations and the principles US likes to promote both internationally and abroad, but the most glaring to me after hearing the debate last night.

And here's what we are told. We are told by at least one of the candidates that insurance companies should not be permitted to discriminate against the applicants based on the their state of health. In other words, the premiums and/or the approval of the application should not depend on how sick the applicant may be. Now, why is it that in the environment of the free market, where any business must pay attention to the bottom line, insurance companies are not allowed to do that. Obviously, if someone is already sick, the likelihood that he or she will be drawing on the benefits of the health insurance is higher than if not. Why should the insurance company, or all the rest of the insured, have to bare the cost of that? I am not debating the justice of lack of it or of discrimination, but am ticked off by the hypocrisy.

Then the sub-prime crisis and the foreclosures. If we have a free market, as we are told to believe, then why should I, a member of the public, pay for someone taking advantage of cheap loans? This makes no sense in the context of the free market, does it? Candidates are all talking about freezing the sub prime rates and putting a moratorium on foreclosures. Well, either lenders are going to lose their investments or everyone will have to pay for the foolish (or perhaps not so foolish, perhaps it is just a gamble and some lose and some win) of those being lured by low sub prime lending rates. In either case, the fundamental principles of free market and free decision making are severely violated.

Again, I am not debating here whether or not we should have socialized medicine or housing or education and leave behind the free market ideal, just am voicing my frustration with the double-speak of those who advocate free market out of one side of their mouth and then want protection when they speak out of the other. Can we just not make up our mind?