- Joined
- May 22, 2012
- Messages
- 104,411
- Reaction score
- 67,639
- Location
- Uhland, Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Any large piece of legislation will have unintended consequences. Most smaller pieces of legislation will even.
When one no longer believes in the legitimacy of the established order one is at liberty to undermine the entire order.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Even the longest journey starts with a single step. There is NO need to jump in the pond over your head just to see if the water is cold or not. Allowing medical insurance to be sold accross state lines would be STEP ONE. Lifting bans, instead of ADDING BANS on "catstrophic" medical care insurance would be STEP TWO. Expanding medicaid, with reasonable, income based fees would be STEP THEEE (the public option). Restrictions on (NOT BANS) rescission and pre-existing condition practices should be addressed as STEP FOUR. Tort reform restrictions should be STEP FIVE. Easily determined cost of care for a variety of conditions, advertised freely, would be STEP SIX.
Replacing private medical insurance with publicly funded care does not mean you don't get care when you need it. There is no need for insurance with public funding.
The forces of the established order are too powerful to be overcome using the existing political system.
What does one do under those circumstances? One changes the rules of the game or one adopts Han Chinese tactics.
When one no longer believes in the legitimacy of the established order one is at liberty to undermine the entire order. Look at the way the Second Iraq War was undermined by people who didn't believe in the order.
BAD idea, charity care should be a private matter, we already have medicaid/medcaid for that, BTW. The LAST thing I want to see is a hospital/clinic run like the post office or motor vehicle department.
I have asked this before and not gotten an answer. Maybe you know. Why is it that insurance cannot be sold across state lines? In theory it sounds like a no brainer, it should be perfectly legal. However, I am assuming hte law did not come about by accident, so does any one know the justification for that ban?
I will say once again, public funding, but private enterprise service. Kinda like school vouchers with minimal public schools. Go to your private doctor and hospital of choice.
Allowing medical insurance to be sold accross state lines would be STEP ONE.
Lifting bans, instead of ADDING BANS on "catstrophic" medical care insurance would be STEP TWO.
Expanding medicaid, with reasonable, income based fees would be STEP THEEE (the public option).
Restrictions on (NOT BANS) rescission and pre-existing condition practices should be addressed as STEP FOUR.
Tort reform restrictions should be STEP FIVE.
Easily determined cost of care for a variety of conditions, advertised freely, would be STEP SIX.
Cool. Then you can secede from the country, and take everyone with you who is committed to preserving an inefficient health care system. I'm not going to stop you. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. :2wave:
Even the longest journey starts with a single step. There is NO need to jump in the pond over your head just to see if the water is cold or not. Allowing medical insurance to be sold accross state lines would be STEP ONE. Lifting bans, instead of ADDING BANS on "catstrophic" medical care insurance would be STEP TWO. Expanding medicaid, with reasonable, income based fees would be STEP THEEE (the public option). Restrictions on (NOT BANS) rescission and pre-existing condition practices should be addressed as STEP FOUR. Tort reform restrictions should be STEP FIVE. Easily determined cost of care for a variety of conditions, advertised freely, would be STEP SIX.
I have asked this before and not gotten an answer. Maybe you know. Why is it that insurance cannot be sold across state lines? In theory it sounds like a no brainer, it should be perfectly legal. However, I am assuming hte law did not come about by accident, so does any one know the justification for that ban?
Cool. Then you can secede from the country, and take everyone with you who is committed to preserving an inefficient health care system. I'm not going to stop you. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. :2wave:
My friend, compose yourself. No one is leaving. Counter-Revolution has to be waged at home.
Is that not EXACTLY what medicaid and medicare do?
So you don't believe that elections or politics can change the system, and you support "counter-revolution." What exactly does your counter-revolution entail, and is it anything I need to report to the FBI?
So you don't believe that elections or politics can change the system, and you support "counter-revolution." What exactly does your counter-revolution entail, and is it anything I need to report to the FBI?
I will say once again, public funding, but private enterprise service. Kinda like school vouchers with minimal public schools. Go to your private doctor and hospital of choice.
Is that not EXACTLY what medicaid and medicare NOW do?
You're the one that stated this...OpportunityCost said:You act like that chart is meaningful. If you dont go in and break down what they did its pretty well worthless. Insurance companies demand certain tests be done to curb the possibility of lawsuit. Even in cases where the doctor is sure of the prognosis. So both have their hands tied. Lower the spurious lawsuits and you lower the tests required.
I showed you the states that already did this and it didn't make a difference in health care costs or insurance premium costs to the consumer. What it did do was lower medical malpractice costs for doctors and insurance claims payouts. Another fine example of the fallacy of the 'trickle down theory'.OpportunityCost said:If tort reform were enacted that would allow insurance costs to drop by placing ceilings on lawsuits, they will curb costs by requiring fewer tests.
Like the above curiosity, if you're really curious you'll find out on your own.OpportunityCost said:Im curious as to how much tort reform has occurred in the last 10 years, since costs have been going up faster, rather than the last 25.
Yes, exactly. Although I think Medicare is more comprehensive. This is why I say we ought to just extend Medicare for everyone (reworking the taxation: separate FICA and income withholding???).
Do YOU think that elections or politics can change the system?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?