|
Post by donr on Dec 23, 2017 13:02:44 GMT -6
I'm all for local sovereignty. >Don, I'm curious if you had money in the stock market in 2008? Do you think government was right to solve that problem? Has government encouraged Wall Street investors- presumably like yourself, but I don't know for certain- dependence on government by continuously coming to the rescue when the market fails?< Frank, I have a friend I met 'cause he was a fan of BOC, and he's a wealthy hedge fund manager. He grew up poor, a son of a Greek immigrant who managed a gas station, had a substance problem, licked it, then discovered he had a talent for the stock market. Now he has boatloads of money. I asked him in 2008 about that, he thought we came close to a financial collapse, and thought the gov't had to do it. But there was no consequences for anyone but Lehman Bros and the GM bond and stock holders (probably quite a few Grannies and retirees too) out of that whole period, was there? And a bunch of Goldman Sachs people joined the Obama administration. That doesn't seem right. Even though the goverment twisted the arms of the banks to make all those bad loans. If you're old enough, remember the ballyhoo about 'redlining' during the Clinton years? Home ownership for all was a big policy deal from Clinton well into the Bush administration. Also Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had a hand in the bubble. Money was so easy that people were speculating houses as prices exploded until the crash in '08-09. Wall Street had repackaged and fobbed off all that shaky debt and the rest is history. The usual suspects exonerated gov't's role in this, but I believe none of it would have happened without government's social policy meddling in the mortgage loan business to begin with. And Clinton's head of Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines, made 90 million dollars in salary and bonuses during that period. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#Role_of_Fannie_Mae_and_Freddie_MacI didn't have stock during that time and very little of my savings are in stock now. I have a knack for never making much money on investments. I missed the 5000 pt. Dow run up since Trump was elected. I'm lucky I'm still able to work and people want to book me.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Dec 23, 2017 13:27:35 GMT -6
Wall Street is controlled more by the local NYC city council than the Federal Regulations regarding banking?? A combination of city and state government. The Federal Reserve is the most powerful player and it's not a government agency.
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Dec 23, 2017 13:49:25 GMT -6
Oh - and his hypothetical wife should get a job before expecting the rest of us, collectively, to pay for her kid to go see the doc. My wife works and raises two kids. My mom worked and raised us kids. She can too. Is it wrong for me to hope that none of any tax dollars I pay end up benefitting you directly via public services like fire, police, food stamps, health care subsidies etc..? Because you or your kids could and should obviously get a job to support yourself, right? God forbid anything happen to you or your family such that your wife can't work and raise those 2 kids. Where's the eye roll emoji. you know, I miss living in New York City. I didn't use any of the social programs they have for low-income people even tho I definitely qualified (food stamps, health care subsidies, subway/bus stipends for kids to get to school) but I'm glad they were there for those that needed them. EVEN IF THEY DID GET A JOB and it still wasn't enough. This is 'murica, I should have some kind of choice where my money goes, right? Well, I pay local taxes for my fire and police services. They take no money from you. I don’t use food stamps and while I have an HSA I typically pay cash for my medical expenses - it’s quite a bit cheaper to do so. So I’m not taking money from you, near as I can tell. And I hope that stays that way. I’m not looking for a handout from you or anyone else. My local taxes support my school district (directly) along with the county hospital. Do you think it should work some other way? Some guy in NYC should pay for cops in Texas? If something did happen to me, I pay out of pocket for life insurance and long term disability. I have money saved just in case, and I would hope that my family and church would take care of me or my family voluntarily before I expected the government to force you to do it. This is just called responsibility. I am responsible for myself and my family, I take responsibility for them and their care. I don’t expect you or anyone else to look after me or them. I also think it is my responsibility to take care of the members of my family, my church, and my community. This is why after Hurricane Harvey me and thousands of Texans spent months cleaning up houses, volunteering at local charities, donated food and shelter and money to people. It’s why I don’t have a studio right now - a family with a one year old is living there while their house can get rebuilt. There’s two ways this kind of stuff can go. People have an attitude that expects personal responsibility and take care of their friends and family, and strangers where they can through direct charitable means and volunteering. Or they are forced to financially support a third party to do it for them via taxation. I think the former is both preferable and more effective, and I think it humanizes people. There’s no virtue in forced charitable giving. And it completely destroys an individuals ability to be completely responsible for themselves. As long as daddy is there - whether it’s your father or Uncle Sam - you’re never really a grownup. The problem is, more people in this country think like YOU than ME, and I don’t get to opt out. So some of my money goes to pay for the health insurance of some kid in Indiana. Sure doesn’t seem like the best way to handle that to me. I’d rather let those Indiana folks and me keep more of our federal tax dollars - then I can help the folks in texas, and those Indianans can help the folks in indiana. Or not, because it’s a free country and if someone wants to be a miserly miserable old bastard and not help others it’s none of my business to force him to do so cuz I think it’s right. I feel like this used to be common sense but I know I’m considered backwards now. Texas it’s still pretty normal, though, thank God.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Dec 23, 2017 14:51:14 GMT -6
Personal Responsibility? What is that? A concept deemed archaic and selfish?
Dogears, good for you. You're living out your faith and respect for humanity which is 1000% more than the vast majority those who speak out against personal responsibility - and for governmental nanny-hood - could ever muster. I hope you get your studio back soon!!
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 23, 2017 17:22:29 GMT -6
The hate and vitriol has no place here. I wanted to read about net neutrality not russians in us politics. It's all connected. I'd rather not read about Russians either, it's sadly impossible to avoid if one pays attentions to what's going on. An interesting development concerning net neutrality is that it appears that there has been a big enough uproar over the decision to get both housers of Congress to take a look at overturning the decision. Of course that's not say they'll do anything. We shall see.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,012
|
Post by ericn on Dec 23, 2017 18:14:03 GMT -6
The hate and vitriol has no place here. I wanted to read about net neutrality not russians in us politics. It's all connected. I'd rather not read about Russians either, it's sadly impossible to avoid if one pays attentions to what's going on. An interesting development concerning net neutrality is that it appears that there has been a big enough uproar over the decision to get both housers of Congress to take a look at overturning the decision. Of course that's not say they'll do anything. We shall see. Not sure if that is good or bad news!
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Dec 23, 2017 18:14:54 GMT -6
The vitriol and hate are connected to Net Neutrality? Or the Russians?
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Dec 23, 2017 18:54:41 GMT -6
We're one country. I don't care if my taxes help someone from another state, if they need help, it's better for our society for many reasons to do so. What I resent is the negative attitude many people put out toward big cities like New York, when we're in fact contributing more to someone else's state than our own.
Some situations can be handled on a personal level, but some need an organized effort. Homeless people on the streets of NY is a complex issue. Me doing something kind for someone when I can still doesn't affect the larger issues. Nothing's wrong with personal responsibility, but some things are bigger than one, or a few people's good intentions.
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Dec 23, 2017 18:59:39 GMT -6
I agree. But the thing is — paying for your kid to go to the doc is not best handled on the national level. Yknow?
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Dec 23, 2017 19:05:40 GMT -6
I'm not convinced that if any current challenge is unsuccessful now that the Dems will actually repeal the changes if they get back in again in 2020.
The Dem's are just as beholden to the corporate dollar as the Republicans and once the next election cycle begins the big comms coporations will have enough control over what the public gets to see, or doesn't see, online to simply force any political challenge to their monopoly to back down.
Remember the it's alternative media that stands the most to lose and they're going to be protesting the loudest along with elements of social media.
If the alternative news message is being blocked while the corporate media's anti Net Neutrality propaganda is not then it's game over.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Dec 23, 2017 19:18:07 GMT -6
I agree. But the thing is — paying for your kid to go to the doc is not best handled on the national level. Yknow? I prefer options. National health care in other big countries works better than our own system for 95% of us. As long as you have other choices, I'd rather see how that goes. This isn't just empty talk, I've been in some other countries and have family where national health care is the system, and though not perfect, it works better than our broken system. An acquaintance of mine was once voted the best teacher in California. She's an amazing person who's done phenomenal things for kids. She had cancer and beat it. She needs a yearly checkup in case it returns, and her health care won't pay for her cat scan. That's the American way right there.
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Dec 23, 2017 20:20:26 GMT -6
I don't understand the logic. Her healthcare plan won't pay. So...she's a state employee of California? Or of a public school district or some such? And it should be my problem that her bad employer (i.e., state or municipality in California) only offers her a bad healthcare plan? I mean.. look, start a fund, take up a collection, whatever. But the logic here is just completely backwards. I wouldn't have a problem at all with the government acting as a public insurer with some kind of national plan. But nowhere when they offer government healthcare can it be allowed to coexist with private plans. Why? Because usually people won't want it. The government need the massive risk pool to subsidize the cost of small percentage of high expense people, and private insurers can offer better plans for smaller (lower) risk pools because they can exclude these folks. So your idea of opt-in national plan won't ever exist - except for some special circumstances like tricare or the VA (and you probably don't want to swap your private plan for the VA, speaking from experience). Your thought process is something along the lines of -- our national healthcare system has been so fouled up due to regulation that it's completely broken, so now we should just let the government handle it entirely. I can't really agree. And rest assured regulation (state, federal, etc) is the root cause of the pricing problems. If I had a magic wand I'd probably do something like this: government mandated insurance account for all - everyone getts a pre-tax HSA account with some annual contribution cap on it. No deductible, no network or discounted / negotiate rates, no copays, nothing. Then people could go back to actual insurance (i.e., coverage for things that don't happen every year... car accidents, not oil changes) with major medical plans, and you restore the pricing mechanism between providers and patients for normal annual visits, wellness checks, and so on. People get a big discount on the tax break, the HSA can grow tax-free when its unused (way better than a low deductible plan in that regard!), providers get paid cash instead of fighting with insurers for 30-90 days for payment, win-win-win. Except for the insurance companies, they lose. Which of course is why it won't happen, because they lobby. Edit - and I agree that some things need to have an organized function. There are dozens upon dozens of charities in the US that work at all sizes and scales, from the American Red Cross at near $3 billion a year revenue to single-issue, single-focus places like the Burke Center for Youth near Austin that help 10-15 boys per year. I don't believe that the requirement for an organized response should automatically equal state or federal government. It just confuses everything, and it never ends. Federal disaster relief was really started in the great flood of 1927 and we've gone from those simple aid packages to the bloated, inefficient behemoth of FEMA... which really just financially incentivizes people to live in stupid, flood-prone areas by acting as a lender / insurer of last resort for their homes. It never is "ok, let's make this temporary plan to help these folks in an organized response". We start an agency, and then it gets funded, then it uses its budget every year (use it or lose it!) and then the budget grows a little, and then more, then before you know it there's billions in waste and nobody is happy. It's the same story every time.
|
|
|
Post by yotonic on Dec 23, 2017 20:36:45 GMT -6
Texas, the home of Enron and the Bass Brothers, has the highest number of Hedge Funds outside of NY & California. They are ecstatic about the new tax bill.
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Dec 23, 2017 20:50:32 GMT -6
Texas, the home of Enron and the Bass Brothers, has the highest number of Hedge Funds outside of NY & California. They are ecstatic about the new tax bill. I’m no hedge fund investor but near as I can tell I’ll have a grand or two more in my pocket come tax time 2019. And I’m good with that.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Dec 23, 2017 22:01:47 GMT -6
No one said it should be your problem dogears. My point was that a fully employed person, paying taxes, clearly valuable to society can't afford a test that might save her life, and I think that's an embarrassment in many ways. I think our health care system's fouled up because of greed, at the core, not from over regulation.That's not to say it isn't over regulated.
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Dec 23, 2017 22:54:53 GMT -6
In the absence of other factors greed results in lower prices, not higher. A child delivered in the 50s at Methodist hospital in Dallas, two days there, was about $100 for the whole shebang, delivery, room, and all. I know, I’ve seen the receipts from a family member.. In 2017 terms that’s about $1000. Today it would probably cost ten times that, if you went by what goes on your EOB.
So were docs or hospitals greedier back then? Or what?
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Dec 23, 2017 23:33:26 GMT -6
dogears Why do you have a problem with the idea that health care should be a human right, not a privilege? Are you heavily invested in, or work for, your local private hospital? Your posts come across like your life creed is "everyone for themselves, except for my offspring and spouse"...
Also, when has greed ever resulted in lower prices? be specific...
Also, since you're in Texas, if your place got messed up by the hurricanes, and you got some FEMA aid or whatever aid they're using to help people, you might want to look into where that aid gets its funding.. Maybe it's from the federal taxes that everyone pays?
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Dec 24, 2017 0:03:20 GMT -6
I "have a problem" with people creating a right that requires others to pay for it.
I'm not heavily invested in a hospital. I work in heavy industry (turbomachinery - steam turbines, gas turbines, compressors).
My life creed is that of my Church. I don't know how you got "everyone for themselves" from anything I've written. However, the fact of the matter is everyone IS for themselves. When I suggested a person could take their tax cut and either send it off as a gift to the treasury or donate it in whole I got an eye roll of "like anyone would do that". But this same guy happily suggests that taxes should be higher. He wants everyone to be forced to do what he won't do by himself. And I'm "everyone for themselves"?
"Greed" is nothing more than a nasty word for economic self-interest. "Greed" makes the world go 'round, its why people open businesses, work to gain market share, and come up with better products or cheaper and faster ways to produce them. Take the price of any piece of electronics or technology in your house. How much would it have been 5 years ago? 10? Competition drives prices down, it always has, it always will. Capitalism drives everything towards commodity. I mean for pete's sake look at this very forum. How many 1073 clones do we see? We may not yet be at the bottom for a 500 series 1073 pre.
In healthcare, though, we have the opposite. Instead of things getting cheaper, they get more expensive. An xray should cost about $2. They used to do them for free in shoe stores in the 40s. Now some plan EOBs charge $3000 for it. You think that tech has gotten more or less expensive? They're digital now, they don't even fool around with film. Same for CT scans. All of this stuff should be decreasing in cost by about 1/2 every 18 months like every other piece of technology out there, until it hits a hardware / commodity floor. That's what greed does, because if you get greedy the next greedy guy over sees a chance to make a buck.
In healthcare we have a non-competitive market system that encourages very few companies to be able to set medical prices nationwide. Doctors are caught between a rock and a hard place, since everyone has insurance but insurance is a pain and sometimes won't pay. So they negotiate with insurance companies to raise prices higher, to negotiate down from. Next time you go see a doc, ask 'em the insurance price for the visit versus cash. They probably can't even tell you the price of the visit without finding out what insurance you have, and then they'll only tell you the copay. They may not even know what the actual price is until the insurance company tells them which code they can bill against. Can you imagine running your business like that? I can't. It's nuts.
I didn't get any FEMA aid. I was very lucky that my house didn't flood, but I had water within an inch of my foundation. Just got stuck in the house for four days or so. It doesn't bother me one bit to say that FEMA is a mess and should be abolished. FEMA does more harm than good, and encourages irresponsible behavior by people. I was mucking out flooded houses and one of the ones I was working in had been re-built from floods three times. How? FEMA. People went without flood insurance or build houses in flood prone areas because FEMA acts as a risk backstop for them. Huh... risk / reward market distortion. Sound familiar? Weren't some folks griping about Wall Street and bailouts a few lines up? Almost like every time the Federal Gov't enters into a market, you get the same thing. I'd nuke the program in a heartbeat with my magic wand, right after I did the HSA thing I talked about above.
And I'd make darn sure the FTC didn't regulate the internet under title II (boo net neutrality!).
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 24, 2017 0:16:06 GMT -6
My town, Santa Rosa, also getting FEMA help. It's no fun. But you have no idea how incredibly awesome it is. Yes life sucks sometimes. FEMA.. thank you!
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 24, 2017 0:18:17 GMT -6
Also round here, people were amazing. The death toll was tiny because neighbors went door to door waking people while the houses were on fire. Talk about taking care of each other, no classism or judgments at all. For at least a week or two anyway. It was awesome.
|
|
ctone
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by ctone on Dec 24, 2017 0:37:21 GMT -6
In the absence of other factors greed results in lower prices, not higher. A child delivered in the 50s at Methodist hospital in Dallas, two days there, was about $100 for the whole shebang, delivery, room, and all. I know, I’ve seen the receipts from a family member.. In 2017 terms that’s about $1000. Today it would probably cost ten times that, if you went by what goes on your EOB. So were docs or hospitals greedier back then? Or what? Not that the statement "in the absence of other factors greed results in lower prices, not higher" is true, but for the sake or argument, one "other factor" present in healthcare that is not present in just about any other industry (notable exceptions being law enforcement, fire abatement and the provision of potable water....all being publicly funded) and markedly not present in industries whose products have seen a pretty sharp decline in relative prices since the 50's as technology and production factors have changed or progressed, is, in healthcare, especially for high ticket care, which is really what's under discussion here, the healthcare is typically a matter of life or death, or a matter of determining whether one lives a life of disabling pain or not. So, most people can survive quite well with a 32" screen T.V., hence constant downward pressure in prices, as screen sizes grow and grow......on the other hand, trying to get through the day with a broken back and fractured scull after falling off a ladder while cleaning your house's gutters might be a bit of a challenge....treatment is not optional. Typically, when one finds oneself in need of bankrupting levels of healthcare, one really doesn't have a choice about whether or not one is going to get that care. In many cases you may not even be conscious, and either the healthcare provider or a relative will be making your care decisions for you....so the tough guy who inevitably claims at this point, how they'll ride it out, or simply die, or whatever, may very well not be conscious, or he or she may be delirious from pain, or as is often the case which the tough guy forgets about until you remind him, he may be the sole or a necessary breadwinner in a family, and he needs to keep it going, if not for himself, then at least for his family....or, the case may be that it's a child of the tough guy that needs expensive bankrupting treatment, or his wife, or a parent...etc....so this isn't only about the tough guy. Enter the Medical industry, specifically at the provider level, which, in this case, is in the unique position of providing a service where the customer hasn't a real choice in whether or not they are to get the service, and typically, are not in a position to shop around for that service...the customer is in effect in a life or death crisis dependent on the medical provider for relief. There is what appears to be an essentially universal sentiment formalized in statutes in which it had been collectively agreed that it is criminally punishable to take advantage of those who are in crisis situations, i.e., natural disasters etc., in which there are resulting shortages of vital resources, food, water and gas etc.... by price gouging. This sentiment as formalized in law, for whatever reason, has not been extended, in the USA, to those who face what can only be described as price-gouging in the throes of a crisis - that is, the price gouging being exerted by the Medical industry on it's patients. Yes, it is greed which determines the costs of provider care, the MD's and hospitals are free to charge whatever insane prices they can....unless they are under some sort of contractual limitations with a particular insurance company, or they are working under one of the federal or state reimbursement programs. And if you can't afford to pay cash out of hand, the hospital, MD, or the collection agency they hire, can take everything of value you own, attach future wages, attach future inheritances etc...they have broad powers to collect the gouging prices they picked out of the air to charge you. Hence, the number one cause of bankruptcy and financial ruin for decades for Americans has been unpayable healthcare bills. Then there are the insurance companies, who contribute nothing of real value to the equation, rather, the insurance companies further add to and perpetuate the cost crisis as they depend on high provider costs, without which there is no need for insurance - so the insurance companies in effect, collude with hospitals and MDs to keep prices sky high. Obama's plan didn't do anything meaningful to reign in costs on the provider side, and from what we've seen of the Republican plan, their plan doesn't either. Both are ultimately exercises in futility regarding reigning in provider price gouging, which means they're both doomed to fail. A single payer system is the only way out of this mess, whether that is some form of extended medicare, or something else. Obama promised a public option during his campaign, a promise he reneged on, but which very well may have provided some significant cost lowering pressure on the insurance companies and providers, and kept prices in line, he didn't do that, so here we are. Regarding whether or not one feels comfortable, at least hypothetically, paying for other people's care in a system in which everyone contributes, as in a single payer system........ consider that statistically, with virtual certainty, either you, or someone you care about, will at some point draw from that system, and it's largely a matter of blind luck, whether in balance you or a loved one ends up drawing more or less than anybody else. In the meantime, you and everyone you care about or that cares about you, can rest assured, that everything you have worked for or perhaps most of what you might earn in the future, can be passed down to your children, or to your wife, or whoever, and will not be wiped out from some catastrophic medical emergency...the value or that peace of mind is incalculable.........Without the protection of a single payer system, that life long hard earned wealth, that one might have gathered, likely ends up in some MD's, or insurance executives, or Hospital executives pockets, where they are free to fiddle it away, maybe a third vacation home, or a few more bit-coins, or play the markets, or invest in a high risk hedgefund, or send their kids to Harvard etc.....meanwhile the poor guy's or gal's heirs are living under a bridge.....wealth is typically built generationally.....
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Dec 24, 2017 0:38:05 GMT -6
That’s how it was here too - still is, if you know where to look. Most people have gotten back to their lives now. And yeah, it was awesome. That’s how it should be.
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Dec 24, 2017 0:49:32 GMT -6
Couple of thoughts.
We should decouple major medical from routine / foreseeable costs. One is actually insurance, the other isn't. Do you think the federal government should pay for all insurance? Homeowner's? Auto? Life? They're all the same thing, they're all (arguably) necessities.
Two - price gouging actually hurts consumers. Anti-gouging laws are actually bad for everyone. I know it's counter intuitive, but the question becomes - would you rather have high prices that allow the market to meet demand? Or would you rather have nothing? Having lived through many hurricanes with our anti-gouging law, the answer is nothing. Instead of people getting enough water, as the price would be high, they buy literally truckfulls at the normal price. And stores run out, so some people go with none. Same with gasoline. Price variants signal that more supply is needed. It happens every storm, and every time anti-gouging means some people go without while others have too much.
Three - there are laws about what medical providers can collect on. In my state, for example, they can't put you out of your home. And, in my experience it's usually not the hospitals that are the "bad guys" for this stuff. Everyone has to make their bills. Also, many hospitals even today are nonprofits, so a lot of those unpaid bills either get written down, negotiated heavily, or -- most common -- passed on to everyone else as general price inflation. Sucks.
And yeah, basically Republicans and Democrats both suck. Neither have any interest in fixing our healthcare system. There's too much money to be made.
Your last argument could be made for literally anything for which insurance is sold. Homeowner's, business, major medical, malpractice, auto, etc etc etc. Doesn't mean anyone other than me is responsible for covering my risk. I *could be* persuaded that a national risk pool makes sense, but there's just way too much social engineering involved when the federal government gets involved. It would just be another plodding, cumbersome system.
|
|
ctone
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by ctone on Dec 24, 2017 1:42:11 GMT -6
Couple of thoughts. We should decouple major medical from routine / foreseeable costs. One is actually insurance, the other isn't. Do you think the federal government should pay for all insurance? Homeowner's? Auto? Life? They're all the same thing, they're all (arguably) necessities. Two - price gouging actually hurts consumers. Anti-gouging laws are actually bad for everyone. I know it's counter intuitive, but the question becomes - would you rather have high prices that allow the market to meet demand? Or would you rather have nothing? Having lived through many hurricanes with our anti-gouging law, the answer is nothing. Instead of people getting enough water, as the price would be high, they buy literally truckfulls at the normal price. And stores run out, so some people go with none. Same with gasoline. Price variants signal that more supply is needed. It happens every storm, and every time anti-gouging means some people go without while others have too much. Three - there are laws about what medical providers can collect on. In my state, for example, they can't put you out of your home. And, in my experience it's usually not the hospitals that are the "bad guys" for this stuff. Everyone has to make their bills. Also, many hospitals even today are nonprofits, so a lot of those unpaid bills either get written down, negotiated heavily, or -- most common -- passed on to everyone else as general price inflation. Sucks. And yeah, basically Republicans and Democrats both suck. Neither have any interest in fixing our healthcare system. There's too much money to be made. Your last argument could be made for literally anything for which insurance is sold. Homeowner's, business, major medical, malpractice, auto, etc etc etc. Doesn't mean anyone other than me is responsible for covering my risk. I *could be* persuaded that a national risk pool makes sense, but there's just way too much social engineering involved when the federal government gets involved. It would just be another plodding, cumbersome system. The different insurance types mentioned are not all the same, only one type is coupled to an industry that routinely results in unavoidable financial ruin for it's customers, usually from no fault of their own. What the govt. should or shouldn't do regarding the other types of insurance is another discussion, probably not worth having. Anti-gouging laws tend to work, they are an expression of our sense of what is moral, and though that has changed for the worse since the 50's, certainly, those laws are one of the few common-sense hold overs of an era when we still had some sense of community responsibility, some sense that if possible, our laws might reflect to some degree the dictum, due-unto-others......not everything should be subject to "market forces", or, as some might call it, Mammon. Anti-gouging laws would typically include limits on the amount any given person could buy and haul off in a crisis thus preventing the scenario you mentioned. Non-the-less, even if a given law fails to perform perfectly, or in some circumstances isn't adequate, the principle of that law shouldn't necessarily be abandoned, rather, it's application or details might be altered, e.g., enforcing limits on what any single person or family can buy of a scarce good in a time of crisis. By surrendering everything, our will, our morality, our common sense, our intuition, all our economic/market interactions, our laws, to some, theoretical "free market", defined largely and not very well at all, by bought and paid for theoreticians courtesy of, historically, various oligarchs, including the Rockefellers, may not be the best or most spiritually edifying route to take. If Texas lets you protect your house from medical creditors, good for you, that is a good start....does it protect your wages? Or bank accounts? Other assets? Other property than your primary residence? Inheritances? Can they put a lien on your house, thus clouding the title? Extend that protection of your house into other assets and wages, and Texas would be on to something. Generally, in most if not all states, except maybe Texas, hospitals and MD's are indeed the "bad guys" and it is they who initiate collections, which leads to bankruptcies......you can look this up....though, it's more than evident given the huge numbers of medical bankruptcies, at least pre-Obamacare, I don't know what the stats have been since then.....but we are talking tens of millions of Americans over a forty year period, many of whom had insurance. No, the last argument couldn't be made for virtually anything which can be insured. Medical care is unique, for the reasons stated.....there is simply no parallel, not even close......
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Dec 24, 2017 3:20:55 GMT -6
The vitriol and hate are connected to Net Neutrality? Or the Russians? Well, both, of course. The Kremlin goal is to stoke as much division and distrust as possible in the West. They don’t give a flying fuck about specific ideology. They manipulate liberals as well as conservatives, they just happened to find the biggest dupes on the right...this round. Could/will be the left next time. ‘Active meaures’ dont stop at party lines though, as the investigations are/will showing/show. But it’s no coincidence that Fox News parrots RT and Sputnik right now. Enough people on the right have hitched their wagons to Trumpism that no amount of evidence will convince them it was a mistake. They’re ready to go down with the ship, and they will. The former ‘Blue Lives Matter’/‘Support Our Troops’- ribbon crowd is being convinced that law enforcement is the villain. That it’s the rule of law itself that’s the problem and not the lawlessness of their own president. Ugly times we live in. But make no mistake, if/when there are more ready and willing “useful idiots” on the left than the right (and that’s saying something, cause they’re are a lot on the left already), it’ll be a lefty stooge instead of a righty one. That “hate and vitriol” is the goal and the reason for the investment, regardless of any ideological positions. And thus far it’s paying a helluva nice return.
|
|