Thread: Presidential Price Fixing

jviehe
I disagree. The republicans should frame this debate as none of the federal govts business. Any reforms should be to remove the federal govt from interfering with the states constitutional rights to regulate healthcare as they see fit, thus giving the people the freedom to design a system which they want locally, and not have to pay for other states. But this would mean less power for the fed and congress, so thatll never happen. Instead well get "reforms" which increase federal power, telling insurers who they have to insure, and as Obamas say, telling them what they can charge

.

That's all well and good, but that boat sailed with the ratification of the 17th Amendment. Whether or not it SHOULD be or is PROPELY the "business" of the Federal Government, the fact is that the Federal Government IS already in the "business", the question now is how to minimize, streamline, and lower the cost thereof.

The answer, free market competition wherever we can. The answer, not getting more people on the government dole. That is why I think it is vitally important for the republicans to focus the publics attention no the distinct issues involved.

When Obama says that his reforms will "lower the cost curve", the GOP response should be "then why do we need tax increases to 'pay' for it?" Because all that money "saved" and then some is NOT going to be used to cut the deficit or reduce government spending, it is simply going to be spent on people that Obama thinks we should spend it on.

Originally Posted by Marcus1124

.

That's all well and good, but that boat sailed with the ratification of the 17th Amendment. Whether or not it SHOULD be or is PROPELY the "business" of the Federal Government, the fact is that the Federal Government IS already in the "business", the question now is how to minimize, streamline, and lower the cost thereof.

The answer, free market competition wherever we can. The answer, not getting more people on the government dole. That is why I think it is vitally important for the republicans to focus the publics attention no the distinct issues involved.

When Obama says that his reforms will "lower the cost curve", the GOP response should be "then why do we need tax increases to 'pay' for it?" Because all that money "saved" and then some is NOT going to be used to cut the deficit or reduce government spending, it is simply going to be spent on people that Obama thinks we should spend it on.

The 17th amendment deals with the election of Senators. And as I said, Republicans should be about getting govt out of the "business". Problem solved. Heck, it even satisfies democrats. They can get universal healthcare in california and everyone can move there.

jviehe
The 17th amendment deals with the election of Senators. And as I said, Republicans should be about getting govt out of the "business". Problem solved. Heck, it even satisfies democrats. They can get universal healthcare in california and everyone can move there.

You're missing the point. First of all, the implications of the 17th amendment go far beyond the method of selecting Senators, it went to the heart of the structural defense of federalism in the Constitution, that Senators were supposed to represent the interests of the states as sovereign entitites (guess how many unfunded mandates of any significance were passed by the Federal government before the popular election of Senators).

The founders were not unrealistic, they knew that words were nothing more than hot air...they didn't believe that just saying the Federal Government was one of enumerated...strong but limited powers would make it so. They understood you needed structures in place to ensure that...the most important of which from a legislative standpoint was having one of the two houses representing the interests of the states, rather than the people of the states. the 17th Amendment did away with that essential protection.

Second, I am not proposing or supporting universal healthcare, what I propose is a strategy that undercuts the disingenuous attempt to cut spending in one place and calling it "savings" when they are just going to turn around and spend it on something else. The public supports "universal care" in the abstract, but ONLY if it does not come at the expense of their own individual quality or cost of care or higher taxes for themselves...in otherwords, they support it in fantasyland, but not in any real world workable way.

Originally Posted by Marcus1124

You're missing the point. First of all, the implications of the 17th amendment go far beyond the method of selecting Senators, it went to the heart of the structural defense of federalism in the Constitution, that Senators were supposed to represent the interests of the states as sovereign entitites (guess how many unfunded mandates of any significance were passed by the Federal government before the popular election of Senators).

The founders were not unrealistic, they knew that words were nothing more than hot air...they didn't believe that just saying the Federal Government was one of enumerated...strong but limited powers would make it so. They understood you needed structures in place to ensure that...the most important of which from a legislative standpoint was having one of the two houses representing the interests of the states, rather than the people of the states. the 17th Amendment did away with that essential protection.

Second, I am not proposing or supporting universal healthcare, what I propose is a strategy that undercuts the disingenuous attempt to cut spending in one place and calling it "savings" when they are just going to turn around and spend it on something else. The public supports "universal care" in the abstract, but ONLY if it does not come at the expense of their own individual quality or cost of care or higher taxes for themselves...in otherwords, they support it in fantasyland, but not in any real world workable way.

The 17th amendment is irrelavent. The real problem is the Supreme Court which constantly allows the federal govt to do things it is constitutionally prohibited from doing, and the dumb mass's who keep electing congress. I hardly think the solution is to get the Republicans to play along to keep it from not getting any worse. We need to reverse, not reform.

Originally Posted by jviehe

Pretty much speaks for itself. The President regrets that he cant simply force insurers to charge what he thinks is acceptable, so hes going to get laws passed which do it for him. How is this not socialism and the death of capitalism?

Obama: "I can't simply issue an executive order lowering everybody's rates. If I could I would have done that already and saved myself a lot of grief on Capitol Hill."

RealClearPolitics - Obama's News Conference

Obama admits that he wants to be a dictator of market prices and is willing to do anything to achieve that goal.

He is a true advocate of liberty. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by jet57

:rolleyes:

Here, read this: Congress Joins Call for Anthem Blue Cross To Reconsider Rate Hikes - California Healthline

and then look up WellPoint.

Good example jet...........this only concerns blue cross OF CALIFORINIA.

Originally Posted by Marcus1124

How so?

Your logic is ridiculous becuase it is out of touch with reality: "out of pocket savings and expenses for healthcare?" People cannot afford their mortage payments as it is, and raising a family on the median income in this contry is getting harder and harder to do.

Taxing benifits will ultimately only serve the employer, becasue if you have to pay for it (tax), then it's certianly not a benefit is it? So everybody gets hurt: the employers will no longer be able to offer incentives to attract the best in the buisness, and, since you're one of those who hates government interventions, I'm surprised you'd try and hide a "solution" behind just such interdiction.

Moreover, when people buy auto insurance, through most comapnies, they have the option to purchase road service that does cover everything else, so your theory falls flat all the way around.

What's missing form your side of the isle - consistenly - the benefits of doing buisness on the US market: this is huge market and anybody that does not think that these major trusts within the industries do not have things like taxes, regulations and other such business expences alreadty figured out to such an extent that they siill make huge profits, is either stupid or lying.

These industries that literally live off the American people owe us for the privilages that they enjoy as result of our good nature and teh path that we have forged for them: it is thier responsibility to play fair so that everybody benefits adn we live as "happily ever after" as is possible.

You folks forget that the record is very clear on how the corporate has manipulated this country from our inception - because our good nature allows them to - up to a point: we've reached that crecsendo again. Your side gets way too hung up on "our rights and freedoms" as thopugh they were really under threat and the corporate is the only body that can save us.

The King of England had to give up his "rights and feedoms" as ruler absolute to make way for the House of Commons and the abolishion of direct feudalism: the US isn't going anywhere.

Your ideas forget the general welfare: which is not an abstract idea; it's either maintained with all due sencerity, or it is taken: our own US history backs up that statement, as does the French Revolution etc etc.

I would suggest -in all sencerity, that a more realistic approach: that respects your values and at the same time makes room for others, who have very credible values as well, be an approach that puts people ahead of the bottom line. I think that you'll find, that by being more creative, you'll be more accepted.

Originally Posted by chassisman

Good example jet...........this only concerns blue cross OF CALIFORINIA.

Don't be boob, okay? This is a preview. California is, what? the 5th largest economy in teh world? Almost a country in itself? BLue Cross is wholey owned by national carrier WellPoint, so Anthem is not moving without orders. Have you not also thought that this is a well timed signal flag?

Originally Posted by jviehe

Ill just address one since the rest isnt worth reading. The second is more plausible. Unfortunately your metaphor is wrong. Now if the doctor told you you need to change your diet, and that he was going to limit your food by having the police monitor you and then garnish your wages if you didnt, then you might have an apt metaphor.

Cap and trade puts a "cap" on production, and then a tax if the govt allows you to exceed that cap (or rather, a bribe).

embloden mine

Which means: what you read is so far over your head that you can't grasp it, so it's better to insult the writer.

Cap and Trade, is about turning on and off industrial polution to better balance and slow down the production of it - so that we all live a littel more comfortably adn perhaps a little longer. I don't suppose you've lived anyhwere near active wild fires and thus experienced the effects: that's what polution does . . . China produces more air pollution than any other country in the world, and with trade winds etc, it takes about three weeks for their clouds to reach the west coast. So, my metaphor about paitent and doctor is right on the money.

You also, are too hung up on corporate rights without even considering how much you're being used.

Originally Posted by jviehe

I disagree. The republicans should frame this debate as none of the federal govts business. Any reforms should be to remove the federal govt from interfering with the states constitutional rights to regulate healthcare as they see fit, thus giving the people the freedom to design a system which they want locally, and not have to pay for other states. But this would mean less power for the fed and congress, so thatll never happen. Instead well get "reforms" which increase federal power, telling insurers who they have to insure, and as Obamas say, telling them what they can charge.

I think you're wrong. These are national carriers and as such US citizens should not have to jump to places that they cannot afford, or places that offer insurance that will not work in the market in which they live to recieve care.

Your state idea opens up a can of worms that solves nothing: if - the market were intelligent or carring enough to police their own misdeads, then this conversation wouldn't be happening, but since they are not and do not, it becomes neccessary - again - for the people as whole to act: that's what federal intervention is. Or, hadn't that fact crossed your mind?

People have been upset about healthcare for many years now. There has been plenty of time to do something about it: it's like the parent and the kid: "how many times have I told you . . ."

Originally Posted by jet57

embloden mine

Which means: what you read is so far over your head that you can't grasp it, so it's better to insult the writer.

Cap and Trade, is about turning on and off industrial polution to better balance and slow down the production of it - so that we all live a littel more comfortably adn perhaps a little longer. I don't suppose you've lived anyhwere near active wild fires and thus experienced the effects: that's what polution does . . . China produces more air pollution than any other country in the world, and with trade winds etc, it takes about three weeks for their clouds to reach the west coast. So, my metaphor about paitent and doctor is right on the money.

You also, are too hung up on corporate rights without even considering how much you're being used.

No, it means I didnt read it. TL;DR and I could see where it was going. Guess Ive just read enough BS for the week.

Originally Posted by jet57

I think you're wrong. These are national carriers and as such US citizens should not have to jump to places that they cannot afford, or places that offer insurance that will not work in the market in which they live to recieve care.

Your state idea opens up a can of worms that solves nothing: if - the market were intelligent or carring enough to police their own misdeads, then this conversation wouldn't be happening, but since they are not and do not, it becomes neccessary - again - for the people as whole to act: that's what federal intervention is. Or, hadn't that fact crossed your mind?

People have been upset about healthcare for many years now. There has been plenty of time to do something about it: it's like the parent and the kid: "how many times have I told you . . ."

Then you pay for it. Leave me alone.

Originally Posted by jet57

Cap and Trade, is about turning on and off industrial polution to better balance and slow down the production of it - so that we all live a littel more comfortably adn perhaps a little longer. I don't suppose you've lived anyhwere near active wild fires and thus experienced the effects: that's what polution does . . . China produces more air pollution than any other country in the world, and with trade winds etc, it takes about three weeks for their clouds to reach the west coast. So, my metaphor about paitent and doctor is right on the money.

Cap and Trade Regulates CO2 and that is not pollution. Plants need CO2 to survive. Without CO2 we would all be dead. Cap and Trade regulates the amount of Carbon Dioxide that companies can put into the air before they have to start paying a tax for it. We will live a little longer with CO2 and more comfortably with it, since it is what plants breath in and we need them to eat and to create Oxygen. In the end it would be better defined as an Carbon Energy Tax.