Tort Reform? How else are people supposed to be protected against irresponsible public behavior of corporations absent regulation? Why are companies allowed to sue us to protect their interest (try violating their property rights, copyright or patents) but they can do things that have public consequences without any regulation or fear of lawsuit?
i have a brain wrote:
Sagarin, it is a mistake for you to even give Sir Lance-a-Lot the time of day. He is the most rabidly partisan asshole out here- sees everything in terms of Democrat vs. Republican, labels all opponents of the welfare state as "conservatives" and then declares himself the winner of the argument by virtue of having exposed them as such. Just let his posts die.
Normally I do ignore him, because, "What's to ignore?" But, I occasionally find humor in it just the same, particularly the detail and level of vitriol.
Brian wrote:
But why don't libertarians ever rail against and take on the subsidies given to businesses? It is always "oh shit, here comes socialism!" and never "oh shit, government is acting fist in glove with big corporations to administer their interests". If I heard alot of both, I would be more receptive to the argument. I don't hear any of these conservative anti-socialism folks (like my grandstanding jackass congressmen here in Iowa Steve King) wanting to abolish the corn subsidy. All libertarians want to do is concentrate on the negative effects of government help to individuals, but never the disincentives and perverse incentives created by government aid to big business and business dominated sectors of our economy. I don't see conservatives marching on Washington to get rid of the corn subsidy.
What the hell is your problem? "Libertarians" (CAPITALISTS) were the ONLY people who constistently took absolutist stances against the bank bailouts, and are the ONLY ones who have ever stood up to the Federal Reserve system, which is by far the worst form of corporate welfare that has ever existed. Capitalists oppose ALL forms of welfare, whether corporate or social. But, don't let reality stop you from using the term "conservative" indescriminately to indict everyone who disagrees with you.
Brian wrote:I'll give you a great example. I don't like the whole corn/meat industrial farm complex and I would be willing to pay more money for food if it wasn't governed by this biazzro system. But damn, when you can buy a burger for .99 cents how the hell do you not do it?
In actuality, I'm with you on this one...
Commoditizing food and relying on competition here has some problems. First, consumers can't tell the difference between a fresh tomato and one pumped full of preservatives. Or a genetically engineered one. Second, subsidies aside there are other incentives for big agriculture companies to corn feed cattle and produce tons of corn syrup. It's... efficient. That's always something that gets pushed in the market regardless of if it's the "right" decision or not.
Bottom line is that no matter how many labels you put on something, Big Ag. can always make their frankenfoods look and taste just as good. Plus, they don't want the labels there anyway.
That said, I really woulden't care *what* fixed the problem so long as it diden't have any really negative side-effects. Market or government. So long as both aren't used improperlly it dosen't matter to me.
Brian wrote:
But why don't libertarians ever rail against and take on the subsidies given to businesses?
Libertarians do. Myself, Sagarin, Mtn. Dew, are just a few of the Libertarians on here who have railed against TARP, the GM and Chrysler bailouts, the AIG bailout, farm subsidies, etc. Don't make the mistake of confusing Libertarians with conservatives or (shudder) Republicans.
Brian wrote:
But why don't libertarians ever rail against and take on the subsidies given to businesses? It is always "oh shit, here comes socialism!" and never "oh shit, government is acting fist in glove with big corporations to administer their interests". If I heard alot of both, I would be more receptive to the argument. I don't hear any of these conservative anti-socialism folks (like my grandstanding jackass congressmen here in Iowa Steve King) wanting to abolish the corn subsidy. All libertarians want to do is concentrate on the negative effects of government help to individuals, but never the disincentives and perverse incentives created by government aid to big business and business dominated sectors of our economy. I don't see conservatives marching on Washington to get rid of the corn subsidy.
You'll have to aks the libertarians. I got kicked out, because I'm a bit too firm on gun control and don't really think any nonparent should have an opinion on abortion (though I do think it should be a states issue).
But, I've got news for you, if we don't implement legislation to level the playing field with the Dragon and BRIC countries that are much more tax-friendly, we will throw the baby out with the bathwater. We already are. As I said, Panama has a "City of Knowledge," where they have a 0% corporate rate. Get the biotech business in, THEN build a revenue base.
American girths are wider in more ways than one, but we're intent upon still feeding the monster and then treating with diet drugs and statins rather than performing radical surgery.
Medical Student,, wrote:
What the hell is your problem? "Libertarians" (CAPITALISTS) were the ONLY people who constistently took absolutist stances against the bank bailouts, and are the ONLY ones who have ever stood up to the Federal Reserve system, which is by far the worst form of corporate welfare that has ever existed. Capitalists oppose ALL forms of welfare, whether corporate or social. But, don't let reality stop you from using the term "conservative" indescriminately to indict everyone who disagrees with you.
Again, very true.
Moreover, in regards to the tort reform, I was referring to excessive punitive damages that drive costs skyward. My wife's OB/GYN shuttered his doors because of ONE lawsuit, which was laregely because of a physiological anomaly inherent with HER.
Blowing.Rock Master wrote:
Libertarians do. Myself, Sagarin, Mtn. Dew, are just a few of the Libertarians on here who have railed against TARP, the GM and Chrysler bailouts, the AIG bailout, farm subsidies, etc. Don't make the mistake of confusing Libertarians with conservatives or (shudder) Republicans.
I'm no longer a libertarian, FTR. But I share about 90% of their belief system. And what is written here is true.
Sagarin wrote:
Moreover, in regards to the tort reform, I was referring to excessive punitive damages that drive costs skyward. My wife's OB/GYN shuttered his doors because of ONE lawsuit, which was laregely because of a physiological anomaly inherent with HER.
The plaintiff obviously, not my wife. Obviously time to go...
I do think, lacking anything else, we do need a viable third-party that would probably capture 67% and understands the need to rein in government an hold it accountable rather than continually swinging the pendulum from left to right and back again.
Sagarin wrote:Moreover, in regards to the tort reform, I was referring to excessive punitive damages that drive costs skyward. My wife's OB/GYN shuttered his doors because of ONE lawsuit, which was laregely because of a physiological anomaly inherent with HER.
But Tort Reform as proposed by conservatives has already been proven not to reduce the cost of health care one cent. Texas has had tort limits in place for 5 years and still has some of the highest costs health care costs in the country. Doctors have seen a reductions in their premiums, but patients still pay more.
However, multiple studies have shown that honesty on the part of hospitals and doctors can reduce lawsuits more than any other factor. A practice saying "if there's a problem we will fix it" in person, without a form letter or cover-up has shown the reduce the likelihood of a lawsuit by 90%. This data is so convincing that Mayo Clinics are putting it into practice. Mayo which has some of the highest quality care in the world also has some of the lowest costs. Hmmmm. Pretty much sends the argument that costs have to be high to keep up quality down in flames.
The theory is shockingly simple, if you get your car's transmission repaired and something goes bad in 90 days (for example) you take it back and they fix it. No lawsuit, no nothing. If I go in for surgery and someone leaves a sponge in it should go without saying that the surgery team responsible should repair the problem at no charge to the patient. Today to get that to happen you have to sue, and to keep you from suing hospitals try to keep you from finding out things that go wrong. That is what's wrong, not that there aren't tort limits.
Squid wrote:
$650/month family plan for three.
Letsrun Roll call: I'm extremely curious...
How much do you pay monthly for health insurance? Family or Individual plan.
WOW! That's unreal...
Medical Student., wrote:
In other words, you intend to force your vision for society on others who do not share your agenda
Typically that's what happen when you pass laws. The law applies to everyone, even those who don't agree with it.
the real thing this reform will accomplish is that it will rid congress of a fair number of the democrats in there, after they just shoved their agenda down americas throat without sufficient support.
It will provide coverage, but not access, to everyone.
Government will expand exponentially into our personal lives.
That's the deal.
This is the bottom line:
Total Health Expenditures Per Capita, U.S. and Selected Countries, 2003
http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/images/figure-1.gif
http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm
The AVERAGE per capita cost for health care for all of the other 19 nations on the chart is HALF the cost for the US.
The health care industry, and namely the insurance industry, has been stealing US Corporations and the US Economy blind for years, and it is time to get that totally out-of-control business under control. Every competitive nation that has a public health care system is better off than we are.
Coach D wrote:
This is the bottom line:
That is far from the "bottom line." It's a superficiality, a distortion of terms and a distraction from the real issue.
Sagarin wrote:
this woefully sick and obese country that is in no way comparable to Europe.
Obesity in Europe is on the rise. Not quite up to U.S. levels yet, but it could be before too long. It is a global problem now.
Blowing.Rock Master wrote:
The impression I'm getting is that most people who support reform don't really know what is in the bill.
I agree. I'd say the same is true for opponents of reform.
It won't happen...because my employer is in bed with too many politicians...repeal the healthcare corp's exemption from anti-trust laws.
More competition = less cost to the consumer.
Raise the medicare eligibility age. You can't solve our healthcare problems without addressing Medicare. Doing so would be like repainting a house with a roof that's about to collapse. Again...not a very politically wise decision. Medicare related business costs insurance companies a lot of time, money, and manpower.
If any of you think this bill is about healthcare or what's "right for US citizens" you are looney. This stopped being about healthcare the minute Obama and the Dems got control. After one party took all the keys to the playhouse it became all about politics and will remain so until the Dems take an asskicking in 2010.
Nothing "fair and balanced" will be done until the Dems lose some of their power because the GOP won't play ball. They may get something that includes the word "healthcare" pushed through, but at this point it won't be much because it will get raped in the Senate. Just get something through....then you can fix it later when the GOP is willing to play ball.
Alan
Medical Student,, wrote:
What the hell is your problem? "Libertarians" (CAPITALISTS) were the ONLY people who constistently took absolutist stances against the bank bailouts, and are the ONLY ones who have ever stood up to the Federal Reserve system, which is by far the worst form of corporate welfare that has ever existed. Capitalists oppose ALL forms of welfare, whether corporate or social. But, don't let reality stop you from using the term "conservative" indescriminately to indict everyone who disagrees with you.
No, they only rail against "socialism". Sure, if pushed, they complain about those other things, but they perversely call government bailouts of banks and car companies "socialism" and "government takeovers of business" when the reality is the opposite, that is, corporate takeover of government. That is far, far from socialism as the government gives money to corporations, but is scared to death to make rules to regulate them. The far left, of course, hated the bank bailouts as well.
And I never hear libertarians standing up strongly to the religious zealots or god-bothered cretins in the conservative movement either. They might quietly be irritated by them, but I don't see them marching on Washington over it.
The fact of the matter is that deregulation is what got us to the point where banks got so big that letting them die would screw us all, and they engineered it that way on purpose.
I don't see how libertarians take such a cavalier view of the "public good" and pretend that people make choices in some sort of neutral atmosphere, rather than an atmosphere where the actions of government and corporations incentivize some behaviors and disincentivize others. One perfect example is our sprawling suburban landscape. Libertarians think it is just a matter of people freely chosing where to live rather than having an environment where people are nudged into certain choices they might prefer not to make.
