Related Posts

The ACA Achieved None of Its Goals
The Argument Against Extending ACA Subsidies
Social Cost of Carbon
The Beat Beat Beat of the Abortion-Media Machine
Trump's Kryptonite
The Technocrats' Utopia
When Competition Goes Wrong
Does Access to Medicaid Improve Health?
Wasting Billions of Taxpayer Dollars - ACA Subsidies Edition
Did ACA Produce Free Healthcare?
The Great Endumbening
One Small Step for a Judge
One Giant Leap for a Liberal
Health Care is Different. So What?
Still No Consistent Argument
Net Neutrality?
The Left's Universal Argument for Regulation
Insuring the Youth
Hopeless?
The Constitution - A Crippling Burden We Can't Escape
Overturning Precedents
ACA Failures and the Limits of Technocracy
Lives Must Be Saved
Yay Federalism!
What's Good Enough for Them
Assorted Links
If Libertarians Ran the Media
Questions I Wish the Media Would Ask
Our Long National Nightmare is Over
The Objectives of Obamacare
Democrats Admit Actions Politically-Motivated
Even Liberals Don't get Obamacare
Hurricane Katrina Analogy
It's Official. Obama Lied.
A Coup at the CBO?
(Don't) Be the Change you Want to See in the World
Headline Lying
A Can of Worms
Not a Slippery Slope

Sunday, January 11, 2015

Topic: Policy
Content Type: Opinion
Keywords: ACA, net neutrality, FCC, cost-benefit, regulation, media

A Can of Worms

Advocates pushed for net neutrality with the same blind enthusiasm they once had for the ACA and the same absence of honest cost-benefit debate.

One of the biggest realizations I had during and after the ACA debate was that the left clamored for this encyclopedic bill without caring (at least publicly) about the costs/downsides of the bill. I never heard one news report, heard one elected Democrat, or read one 'progressive' blog article that tried to weigh the pros and cons. I'm sure there were a few bloggers who briefly mentioned a downside, but by and large, the left believed the ACA would reduce the uninsured rate to zero, some thought it would lower costs, and the most connected probably knew taxes would be going up for the richest.

The only party that really should have done more homework to present the problems with the ACA was the news media, and they did nothing of the sort. No reporting on how premiums would have to go up if those with pre-existing issued were guaranteed insurance, no talk about the effects of allowing students up to 26 to stay on insurance, no discussion of the minimum loss ratio regulation. All of these regulations--as far as the media were concerned--were freebies. Only positives.

Now, I'm worried about the same thing happening with Net Neutrality. It appears that the FCC is going to reclassify the internet as a public utility. This will allow them more power to regulate it. It is very important to understand, that as it is, THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH THE INTERNET that this will fix. Instead, the Net Neutrality activists want this to forestall fast lanes, primarily.

My concern is that all of those who are advocating this policy change have not really considered all of the downsides of doing so. They are scared of prioritizing content, this will prevent that, so this must be done. What else will it enable the FCC to do? Shouldn't that be part of the debate? Wouldn't it be prudent also to wait until the cable companies do this prioritizing and see what the effect is before we outlaw it? There's a chance that prioritizing would be better for consumers.

I would fear a slow-lane internet that receives no maintenance and gradually deteriorates, but I believe we should address that problem when it occurs; reclassification could have large, unintended consequences (as many regulations do).