Gyroscopic Investing

Ad Orientem wrote: I completely agree. Which is why I support (with deep reservations) a single payer system like almost every other country in the civilized world has. Obamacare is a mess. It was an attempt to get everyone insured while bowing to the free market god.

You didn't answer my first point:

If all you/democrats cared about was poor people having access to health care, then the answer is simple, give everyone under a certain income health care to whatever level you desire, and leave everyone else's heath care alone. "

Because your goal is CONTROL, government control over everything and everyone.  To what extent it does or does not help poor people (or harms everyone) is irrevelant.  If I am wrong, explain why what I suggest is not to your liking?

"why don't we just cut the bull and institute single-payer, and if it doesn't work after 8 year people will hate it and we'll go back to what we have now"

it is not possible to go back once it is instituted, and you know that. 

Ad Orientem wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

Ad Orientem wrote: It was an attempt to get everyone insured while bowing to the free market god.

What on Earth does it have to do with the free market?

If Starbucks bribed politicians to force us to buy coffee every morning from them would you call that the free market?

What is your definition of the free market? This is crapitalism. Crony capitalism also know as Fascism, just another version of Statism.

I gather you are also opposed to mandating auto insurance, and you oppose the existence of police departments and fire departments as these are supported by coercive taxation?

Yes I completely oppose theft.

Maybe we shouldn't go down this road again.

OK. I will withdraw my last post in the interest of global peace.

My post had more emotion that I intended, but it is a vaid question.

Benko wrote:

Ad Orientem wrote: I completely agree. Which is why I support (with deep reservations) a single payer system like almost every other country in the civilized world has. Obamacare is a mess. It was an attempt to get everyone insured while bowing to the free market god.

You didn't answer my first point:

If all you/democrats cared about was poor people having access to health care, then the answer is simple, give everyone under a certain income health care to whatever level you desire, and leave everyone else's heath care alone. "

Because your goal is CONTROL, government control over everything and everyone.  To what extent it does or does not help poor people (or harms everyone) is irrevelant.  If I am wrong, explain why what I suggest is not to your liking?

"why don't we just cut the bull and institute single-payer, and if it doesn't work after 8 year people will hate it and we'll go back to what we have now"

it is not possible to go back once it is instituted, and you know that.

Universal healthcare isn't even all that much about giving healthcare to the financially destitute.  That's what Medicaid is for.  It's about guaranteeing insurability so people don't become financially destitute due to a health event.

This isn't just a charitable thing... it's infrastructural.  The government doesn't build roads and sewer systems for just the poor.  It builds it for everyone.  I don't think it's absolutely ludacris that along with military and police protection, transportation and legal infrastructure, that we have an infrastructural system of health coverage.

However, to try to weave that infrastructure with employment is a mess.  It achieves group ratings, but it's such an annoying mess for employers to manage.

Yep, I just spelled ludicrous "ludacris."  Like the rapper.

MT, ban me, would you?  I am not allowed to have my opinion count anymore.

Thanks Craig.

Let the TROLLING BEGIN!!!

JK.

moda0306 wrote:

Benko wrote:

Ad Orientem wrote: I completely agree. Which is why I support (with deep reservations) a single payer system like almost every other country in the civilized world has. Obamacare is a mess. It was an attempt to get everyone insured while bowing to the free market god.

You didn't answer my first point:

If all you/democrats cared about was poor people having access to health care, then the answer is simple, give everyone under a certain income health care to whatever level you desire, and leave everyone else's heath care alone. "

Because your goal is CONTROL, government control over everything and everyone.  To what extent it does or does not help poor people (or harms everyone) is irrevelant.  If I am wrong, explain why what I suggest is not to your liking?

"why don't we just cut the bull and institute single-payer, and if it doesn't work after 8 year people will hate it and we'll go back to what we have now"

it is not possible to go back once it is instituted, and you know that.

Universal healthcare isn't even all that much about giving healthcare to the financially destitute.  That's what Medicaid is for.  It's about guaranteeing insurability so people don't become financially destitute due to a health event.

This isn't just a charitable thing... it's infrastructural.  The government doesn't build roads and sewer systems for just the poor.  It builds it for everyone.  I don't think it's absolutely ludacris that along with military and police protection, transportation and legal infrastructure, that we have an infrastructural system of health coverage.

However, to try to weave that infrastructure with employment is a mess.  It achieves group ratings, but it's such an annoying mess for employers to manage.

Then propose a stop-loss, e.g.,  any health expenses for a family of more than $25,000 in a given year are paid for by the government. The premium for something like that should be 1/100th of the cost of Obamacare.

Note: I don't approve of this either. It's just a practical way to solve the problem that Obamacare was supposed to solve but doesn't solve at all.

Another practical way to solve the problem Obamacare was trying to solve was to federalize the regulation of insurance and destroy all the ridiculous barriers to competition that the states have set up. With one giant nationwide market, I would expect prices to quickly plummet.

Pointedstick wrote: Another practical way to solve the problem Obamacare was trying to solve was to federalize the regulation of insurance and destroy all the ridiculous barriers to competition that the states have set up. With one giant nationwide market, I would expect prices to quickly plummet.

Prices would plummet....for the easily and cheaply insurable (fairly young and reasonably healthy...the "young invincibles"). Those with pre-existing conditions (or even those who were simply older) would end up in many cases paying even more than they do now as adverse selection death spirals--brought about due to the cheaply insurable buying policies under the new federalized laws that didn't have community rating and guaranteed issue and thus leaving behind the slightly less healthy, the least unhealthy subset of whom owould then decamp from the risk pool as well and so ad infinitum until only the sickest and oldest are left--brought an end to the community rated and guaranteed issue enforced risk pools that some states now have (and that HIPPA and other Federal laws currently mandate for employer-provided coverage as well...i.e an employer cannot provide coverage for only the healthy under a group plan; they have to cover everyone at the same rate for the same type of coverage).

Of course, this issue COULD be solved by mandating under the new "federalized" rules that all policies be community rated and guaranteed issue but then you'd have the same sort of adverse selection graveyard spiral as only the sickest were eventually left in the risk pools and coverage prices increased more and more due to the degradation of the risk pool and more and more found it cheaper to do without insurance (seeing as how they could buy it whenever they got sick and thanks to the community rating and guaranteed issue laws the insuer couldn't charge them more or turn them down). Well, that could be fixed by mandating that everyone, not just the sick, had to buy insurance under the new Federalized insurance regulations, but then you have people who are basically forced to buy a product they might not be able to even afford and so they will need subsidies....which brings us right back to where we started with......Obamacare.

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

Kshartle wrote:

Ad Orientem wrote:

Benko wrote:

They all have some form of universal health care system. So you are saying that the rest f the world is somehow evil and we, being the only nation that allows people to die because they don't make enough money or their job doesn't pay benefits, are the last bastion of freedom in the world?

You'll never hear me make the claim that the US is the last bastion of freedom in the world.

Honest and sincere questions - I've heard it said many times that Health Care is a basic right because people need it to live. Ok.

Don't they need food, water, clothing and shelther much much more than health care though?

Are all those things basic rights?

Is everyone entitled to all of those also?

Since they all have to be provided by someone else, are people entitled to have other people be forced to work and provide them on their behalf?

I think if someone wants to make the claim that health care is a basic right they should be able to answer these questions. Otherwise they are being hypocritical.

Hey if somebody loves socialism or Obamacare or whatever then take on the challenge of my questions. Unless you have no b@lls.

Embrace your beliefs and defend them or don't mouth them. It's lame if you blather on about rights and can't support it against the most basic questions. It should tell you something about your thought process. Someone who loves the welfare state step up and answer my questions. Why does one man owe another man his property or time (which is his LIFE)?!?!

Pointedstick wrote: Another practical way to solve the problem Obamacare was trying to solve was to federalize the regulation of insurance and destroy all the ridiculous barriers to competition that the states have set up. With one giant nationwide market, I would expect prices to quickly plummet.

That would also help quite a bit. And amazingly enough, it would actually be Constitutional!
Which is probably why they haven't proposed it... well, that and the fact that it would actually help the problem, which is the opposite of what they want.

Simonjester wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

Ad Orientem wrote:

You'll never hear me make the claim that the US is the last bastion of freedom in the world.

Honest and sincere questions - I've heard it said many times that Health Care is a basic right because people need it to live. Ok.

Don't they need food, water, clothing and shelther much much more than health care though?

Are all those things basic rights?

Is everyone entitled to all of those also?

Since they all have to be provided by someone else, are people entitled to have other people be forced to work and provide them on their behalf?

I think if someone wants to make the claim that health care is a basic right they should be able to answer these questions. Otherwise they are being hypocritical.

Hey if somebody loves socialism or Obamacare or whatever then take on the challenge of my questions. Unless you have no b@lls.

Embrace your beliefs and defend them or don't mouth them. It's lame if you blather on about rights and can't support it against the most basic questions. It should tell you something about your thought process. Someone who loves the welfare state step up and answer my questions. Why does one man owe another man his property or time (which is his LIFE)?!?!

i don't think the logic can be worked out in a way that it can be truly defended, but just for fun i will put on my devils advocate hat and give it a try.... FYI i don't believe the stuff i will be arguing so i will try to make the print blue.. the color if socialism (didn't it used to be red? )

yes Health Care food, water, clothing and shelter Are all basic rights, and yes because we live in a society/environment/world with no outside we have a duty to each other and therefor we all have a right to demand a portion of each others labor/property be redirected to the benefit of the group as a whole, and because we have some who are greedy and would not care for others benefit, we have the right to use force (law and government) to do so... if we don't do this some people may get their needs met by charity but most wont, and those that don't end up costing society financially, putting a greater strain on the system than redistribution would, plus the failure of our humanity and morality letting people suffer represents...

And let's not forget other human basic rights such as:
A right to a cell phone and basic cable
A right to cross borders
A right not to be offended

Libertarian666 wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: Another practical way to solve the problem Obamacare was trying to solve was to federalize the regulation of insurance and destroy all the ridiculous barriers to competition that the states have set up. With one giant nationwide market, I would expect prices to quickly plummet.

That would also help quite a bit. And amazingly enough, it would actually be Constitutional!
Which is probably why they haven't proposed it... well, that and the fact that it would actually help the problem, which is the opposite of what they want.

How about cancel all regulation and let the market regulate it? People will buy what they want. The best companies will be rewarded. You don't have to worry about bad insurance companies. No one will buy their insurance.

And without the regs the costs will plummet.

Does everyone here understand how free market competition works? It benefits the consumer far far more than the business. With fascism they just lobby the goverment to force you to buy their crappy products. That's what we have now.

I would favor a system where government offers incentives to the private insurance companies based on their performance.  Something like the more members an insurance company attracts the more government subsidies they get. No pre-existing condition exclusions allowed but ability to switch insurance company at any time. So by being more consumer friendly in every way (premiums, customer service, network quality) the insurance company would get more money from the taxpayer pool. Provide lousy service? Lose subsidies.
I do think there needs to be some sort of subsidy as the hands off system we had simply didn't work.

Mdraf wrote: I would favor a system where government offers incentives to the private insurance companies based on their performance. 

What about the crazy idea of letting customers provide incentives by just buying insurance from companies based on their performance? Why do we need the goverment taxing people and sending that money to insurance companies?

Kshartle wrote:

Mdraf wrote: I would favor a system where government offers incentives to the private insurance companies based on their performance. 

What about the crazy idea of letting customers provide incentives by just buying insurance from companies based on their performance? Why do we need the goverment taxing people and sending that money to insurance companies?

Because that's what we had before and it didn't work for all the reasons we discussed before - pre-existing conditions, lawsuits, malpractice, subsidy of drugs to foreigners etc etc.  As a society voters have shown that taxpayer redistribution is wanted (Medicare, Medicaid). The problem we are grappling with now is to how to re-distribute in the most efficient manner.

Mdraf wrote: As a society voters have shown that taxpayer redistribution is wanted (Medicare, Medicaid). The problem we are grappling with now is to how to re-distribute in the most efficient manner.

Good luck with all that.

I would refer anyone who hasn't to read Browne's book "Why Government Doesn't Work"

Kshartle wrote:

Mdraf wrote: As a society voters have shown that taxpayer redistribution is wanted (Medicare, Medicaid). The problem we are grappling with now is to how to re-distribute in the most efficient manner.

Good luck with all that.

I would refer anyone who hasn't to read Browne's book "Why Government Doesn't Work"

I would agree. But one has to be pragmatic.  Our society is not about to turn back. So we need to make lemonade with the lemons we have.

Mdraf wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

Mdraf wrote: As a society voters have shown that taxpayer redistribution is wanted (Medicare, Medicaid). The problem we are grappling with now is to how to re-distribute in the most efficient manner.

Good luck with all that.

I would refer anyone who hasn't to read Browne's book "Why Government Doesn't Work"

I would agree. But one has to be pragmatic.  Our society is not about to turn back. So we need to make lemonade with the lemons we have.

I'm afraid it's not lemonade but pee with some sugar poured in.

Kshartle wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: Another practical way to solve the problem Obamacare was trying to solve was to federalize the regulation of insurance and destroy all the ridiculous barriers to competition that the states have set up. With one giant nationwide market, I would expect prices to quickly plummet.

That would also help quite a bit. And amazingly enough, it would actually be Constitutional!
Which is probably why they haven't proposed it... well, that and the fact that it would actually help the problem, which is the opposite of what they want.

How about cancel all regulation and let the market regulate it? People will buy what they want. The best companies will be rewarded. You don't have to worry about bad insurance companies. No one will buy their insurance.

And without the regs the costs will plummet.

Does everyone here understand how free market competition works? It benefits the consumer far far more than the business. With fascism they just lobby the goverment to force you to buy their crappy products. That's what we have now.

Yes, that is correct. But my point was that the federal government actually has the authority under the Constitution to regulate interstate commerce, so all they have to do is to tell the states that they can't stop you from buying insurance from a company in another state, and competition will be greatly improved.