Nothing can go worgn.....CASH FOR CLUNKERS CHAOS

I don't see the "competition" you seem to think exists. My "company",
the state gvt, offers several health care options but they are all
essentially the same and they all cost exactly the same. The only
thing I really get to choose is to see if my current doctors are in a
particular companies network. That's it, that's the only "choice" I'm
making. I would suspect private companies that offer health care do
the same, they look for the cheapest thing they can find and then the
employees take it or leave it... you call that a choice??? What is
guaranteed to happen if we do nothing is that health care costs will
continue to rise at a rate way beyond inflation and in a few years our
"choice" will be to pick a bare bones coverage or nothing at all while
the insurance and drug companies continue to stay fat and happy.

 

I think the present problem has little to do with gvt. It has
everything to do with our health care system being third party pays.
There is ZERO incentive for anyone with health coverage to try and
keep costs down. They stub their toe and they want a full body CAT
scan and the doctors don't want to say not due to malpractice
concerns. And since the insurance company is the one paying the
injured doesn't care what it cost and the doctor doesn't care what it
costs. The reason you can afford to pay CASH for vet care for your
pets is because YOU pay the bill directly. If most pets were covered
by the kind of health insurance people are, the cost of vet care would
most likely quadruple within 5 years.

 

Those two statements don't go together. The reason there is a third
party system is because of the US federal tax code. In WW2 the federal
government capped wages but allowed health insurance benefits and
employers and employees got tax benefits from offering and taking them.
That's how today's system started. So, yes, it has everything to do with
the government.

Do you really think 'free' healthcare paid by the government with money
it takes from other people will convince people to watch their bills?
HA! the only way government can keep costs down is to use either
monopoly in health care or their monopoly on the legal use of violence
to deny care where today's insurance can't do it because of law,
lawsuit, or market pressure.

 

no you won't. They would only drop by 1.5%.

http://washingtonindependent.com/55535/tort-reform-unlikely-to-cut-health-care-costs

 

That's just rationalizing to make the gvt the bogeyman. Even allowing
that it started that way, when it started it was not the money pit it
now is. The CURRENT problem is not due to gvt, it is due to it being
third party pays. Just like with a car warranty. When you know
something is covered under the warranty, with the repairs paid by the
third party, the owner doesn't really care what it costs and the
repair shop has no incentive to try and save the customer a nickel.
The ONLY one of the three parties with an immediate interest in
keeping costs down is the insurance company. That's to max their
profits and keep the policy affordable. Now move to health insurance,
where the bulk of the premium is paid not by the employee, but by the
employer, and none of the three parties (insured, insurer, health care
provider) has much incentive to keep costs down. the employer would
like costs to stay low, but they are not even in the decision chain on
what will be provided and for how much.

No. Why would anyone think that.

Gvt can keep costs down by creating a structure that doesn't have 15%
of the premiums going to overhead and admin and another 5 to 15% going
to profits. Other countries have gotten rid of the profit part and
reduced teh overhead to around 5%. Gvt could also limit lawsuits but
that's only 1.5% of costs so it's really not a big deal.

 

Plus you'd have a lot more dead people.

It's always amusing to see people fall for the lawyer bashing that is
promoted by the corporations and organizations that are sued the most,
with good reason.

They think that saying "tort reform" makes them knowledgeable about the
issue. It doesn't. These are the same clueless people that were so quick
to jump on the bandwagon criticizing the jury that awarded the woman
damages in the McDonald's coffee case.

 

No. It's how we ended up with 'health insurance' that covered even the
basics being employer provided.

The government, through medicare and other programs controls an enormous
percentage of the healthcare market. Somehwhere around 50% give or take
a little. I've heard 47-51%.

Then costs will not be controlled. It will have the same problem that
you say is today's problem.

LOL. What in the US federal government runs as lean as 15% overhead?
Your 'successful' cash for clunkers program seems to be running around
33% overhead.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/08/05/lurita-doan-cash/

 

that's nothing but wild speculation by some former gvt employee and
current whacked out right winger.

 

What I don't get is why people who fully understand what scams the
government does with regards to speeding and other traffic tickets has
even a tiny bit of trust for government in other areas.

 

Bingo. That was bad, but when they later required HMO plans to be
offered, it became worse. At least with the old 80/20 plans patients
saw _some_ part of the bill, proportionate to the actual cost.

 

I can only speak for myself but I don't lump everything having to do
with "government" into one big pot and then damn all of it. You won't
find anyplace in the world where there are more then a few
hundred/thousand people concentrated in pockets where those people
have not formed a gvt. So it should be pretty clear that when it
comes to humans and their social interactions the natural state is to
have some form of gvt. It's also clear to most people that there
simply is no way to have a gvt without ceding to it some power over
"the people". For gvt to work it has to have some degree of power,
including the ability to tax and spend. So when you rant and rave and
indicate that the only acceptable form of gvt would be one that is
powerless to do ANYTHING that you personally don't agree with there is
no way to take you seriously. I have this discussion all the time
with other, more "pure" libertarians. This is why the libertarian
party has not and most likely will not, ever accomplish much or win
many converts. It makes for fun discussions, but while they are
discussing, the reps and dems are running things.

 

So you believe that those in government will steal only on traffic
tickets but not the billions of health care? It doesn't make much sense.
Theives steal when they have the opertunity.


? You won't

Most governments aren't formed by the people, they are criminal gangs
warlords and the like that have installed themselves as governments.
Governments that are formed by people are often taken over by such.

No. The natural state is not to have someone using a monopoly on legal
violence managing your life.

It would help if you didn't create easy arguments and assign them to me.
I didn't say anything of that regard, nor do I have anything I want
government to steal from other people to give to me.

If you look at what I 'want government to do' it is to get its nose out
of things. To shrink, to go away, to mind its own business instead of
telling people how to live and sending their jack booted thugs to
enforce it.

Yes, a one party system of theives and control freaks.

 

Have you participated in gvt in anyway other then living here? Have
you served in any elective or appointed office? Have you worked in
any responsible positions in gvt? Do you know any elected officials
personally? Does anyone in your family work for gvt?

I ask because it's hard to believe anyone could actually believe that
the only people in gvt are thieves out to steal from you. Do you hold
the same opinion of people working for private companies? Are all
private company owners and employees all just a bunch of thieves out
to steal from you? Can I assume you work either for yourself or for a
private company? If so, what's your "goal", i.e. is your goal to make
as much money as you can or what?

 

I am not going to follow that lead. It's bogus and you damn well know
it. Including the strawmen you made.

I'm sorry you don't see how government systems operate. I simply kept
seeing the traffic ticket model again and again and again until I no
longer believed a word of what I was told. So I looked again and again
hoping that something would be different, but each time it was the same
old thing.... just another way of using the political power, the force,
etc to enrich some people at the expense of others.

 

Because most guv'ment endeavors are a recipe for failure.

As I understand it, a dealer must complete IIRC a thirteen page form for
each vehicle traded in under the clunker scheme.

That alone is illustrative on just how inept our bureaucrats have
become. Certainly, a simplified single page form would have worked better.

I have no faith in ANYTHING the guv'ment does. But that's just me...

JT

 

You always avoid walking the talk. Here you do it again. What are
you afraid of? Those are honest questions that IF you were
intellectually honest you would be able to answer. Your failure to do
so speaks volumes about the depth of your knowledge.

 

LOL. I have to answer your loaded personal questions? That's absurd.
The reality is that you cannot defend your pro-government power views
and decided that I should be the target. Sorry, I'm not gonna play that.

BTW, here's another example of how government works to 'protect' us.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090827/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_product_testing_mattel

First, suppliers to big toy companies have poor quality control in china
(shock!) and the the big toy companies have to do recalls. So what
happens? Big toy companies and their lobbiests decide there needs to be
regulation. So regulation is drafted that really puts the screws to the
small toy manufacturers with expensive testing requirements. The big
guys like mattel can afford it. The little guys who don't have this
cheap low grade contaminated material problem from china because they
don't make their toys in china, can't afford it. Now the government
turns around and decides that Mattel doesn't even have to do the
expensive third party testing.

That is how government works in the USA. For the connected, by the
connected. Free market? Can't have any of that.

 

Not sure what your complaint is about since the whole point of the law
was to ensure testing is done so contaminated products don't get
imported and that's what Mattel is doing. Mattel has developed a
system that does exactly that. You seem to be objecting to the fact
that Mattel has it's own laboratories which are able to run the tests
so they don't have to pay an outside lab to run them. They are doing
the required tests. That's what the law requires.

If the gvt had refused to let them do these tests with their own
labs you'd be screaming about how bad gvt is because it refuses to
allow a company to save some money but thru stupid laws forced them to
spend extra money on an outside lab to duplicate what they could have
done themselves. This is a perfect example of how irrational you are
about the gvt.

Are you implying that Mattel is falsifying the lab results? And if
so, are you alleging that it's a company policy to falsify them or are
you alledging that it's not a company policy but that the workers in
the lab will falsify them anyway just because they think they'll get
fired if they don't. Or what is it that bothers you about this???
This is a perfect example of the free market response to a gvt safety
mandate and yet you complain about it. You complain about everything
connected to the gvt simply because it's connected to the gvt.

 

You just don't get it at all do you. Maybe I can make one last attempt
to explain it to you. You know of DRL's right? Remember when GM bought a
company that made them? What did GM do after that? It wrote up a
regulation to make DRLs required equipment and lobbied for it. Why do
you think it did that? For our safety (even though there isn't
anything that shows it makes us safer) or because it could meet the
regulation at a lower cost than its competition?

Oh, and it's really funny given your views of private business that
you'd trust mattel's testing. You're just looking for ways to
rationalize the state so your world view doesn't come crashing down.
It's clear doublethink since you are fully aware of what government does
in the area of driving and motor vehicles.

BTW, I came across this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO2eh6f5Go0

 

Yes, I'm sure GM went thru the trouble of buying a company, then
lobbying for a DRL law, all in the quest to stave off bankruptcy
because in doing those things they would save 0.50 per car compared to
other makers because they could do DRLs at a lower cost then other
makers. Yeah, that makes perfect sense. You've convinced me.

Do you bother reading what I write before you fantasize what you need
to believe? I'd love smaller, less intrusive gvt. But you can't seem
to separate the wheat from the chaff. Not EVERYTHING gvt does is bad
bad bad. Without having a lot more info I can't say I definitively
trust Mattel's testing but I do know that it's certainly possible to
set up a testing program where you can guard against fraud. If
Mattel has done that, more power to them.

Hardly doublethink. I know it's not a perfect world but I don't
condemn EVERY gvt action because SOME of them are wrong.