Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And some do. But that was not the point I was making or expecting you to make, but the idea floated by free marketeers that government should stay out of the way of private enterprise. Do you not subscribe to that idea? Should government engage in regulating the private enterprise?
And none do, there is no serious person on the right who thinks there should be no government. Please point out who you think expouses this view.
The government should have very minimal involvement in business. Yes regulation is needed in certain areas. I certainly do not think American businesses are under regulated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
And how is this any different from the point I just made? You don't want the government to do anything related to health insurance, or do you? Your suggestion on vouchers sounds like the only role government has to play is to make it easier for private enterprise to have customers.
I am not sure where you get that form anything I have written, the government already regulates health insurance. I am in no way proposing not regulating insurance companies. Although some regulations like prohibiting selling health insurance across borders is anti competitive and drives costs up.
The government should have very minimal involvement in business. Yes regulation is needed in certain areas. I certainly do not think American businesses are under regulated.
Could you provide the areas/things that the government should regulate?
Quote:
I am not sure where you get that form anything I have written, the government already regulates health insurance. I am in no way proposing not regulating insurance companies. Although some regulations like prohibiting selling health insurance across borders is anti competitive and drives costs up.
But federal government doesn't regulate within a state. And yet there is little to no competition? What is the basis of this idea that removing government control over basic structure of health insurance will promote competition when it is not visible in local markets when it should? In most states, it is all about one or two mega companies that cover most of the populace. You would think more would?
The reason it needs to be regulated is simple. To protect the people. Isn't federal government authorized (and expected) to regulate interstate commerce? Lack of that authorization was one of the major reasons the US Constitution was written to replace the Articles of Confederation. States, on their own, were abusing each other. And who suffers in the end? The people, the very same people whose rights the government is expected to protect and defend.
Could you provide the areas/things that the government should regulate?
No, as with your objection to discussing education it is out of the scope of this thread, and also it isn't relevent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
But federal government doesn't regulate within a state. And yet there is little to no competition? What is the basis of this idea that removing government control over basic structure of health insurance will promote competition when it is not visible in local markets when it should? In most states, it is all about one or two mega companies that cover most of the populace. You would think more would?
Well you are pointing directly to how some regulations are anti competitive. The reason there are few health insurance companies is because there are 50 states that have different regulations, that is a daunting hurdle for all but the biggest companies. Standardize the regulations and allow one insurance to be sold in all states. Can't do that now due to regulations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
The reason it needs to be regulated is simple. To protect the people. Isn't federal government authorized (and expected) to regulate interstate commerce? Lack of that authorization was one of the major reasons the US Constitution was written to replace the Articles of Confederation. States, on their own, were abusing each other. And who suffers in the end? The people, the very same people whose rights the government is expected to protect and defend.
Who said insurance companies don't need regulations. This is a strawman argument.
Because we have an aging population and something needs to be done. I'm not sure this it but this kill grandma rhetoric is why we'll never get anything done to fix social security or medicare. The fear mongering must stop.
grandma is going to make some sacrifices, which is sad but we all are. None of these entitlement programs are sustainable.
Why don't I just go ahead and cut my wrists now for the greater good of the country as a whole. After all, I am just a drain on society......right ? On second thought, you go first.......
The Democrats Were always going to ration Health-care.
They just never admit it.
With nationalized health-care Rationing is a forgone conclusion.
Thanks to the Democrats Health-care Rationing is in every Americans future.
Unless the Republicans can repeal and replace.
absolutely true ! Medicare benefits are already cut to the bone.....to go much lower and it won't make any difference because doctors are dropping Medicare now.
Keep your promise, Obama, and go after the fraud....remember, it was to mostly fund the new universal health care.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.