ludin said:
no I don't owe you anything. you are responsible for yourself. I don't work to pay for you I work to provide for my family. no people don't join socieities to take care of each other.
That is simply false. But, for the fun of it, tell me: why do you think people join societies?
ludin said:
no you are free to live in a place where everyone pays for everything for you. I hear cuba, china, north korea are nice this time of year.
I don't want to live in a society where everything is socialized. Nor do I think pure communism is an ideal economic or governmental model--and I have
never said otherwise. However, some socialization is good, and socialized health care would be a good, in my view.
That said, you're simply dodging the point, which was about why societies exist--to wit, taking care of all the individual members, who would do far worse living on their own. We survive better and have longer and more enjoyable lives living as part of a collective, with certain things guaranteed by society as a whole. It's not an argument against the notion that X is good to say that too much of X is bad. For instance: two aspirin when you have a headache is good. Two whole bottles of aspirin is bad. Similarly, some socialization is good. Too much is bad.
ludin said:
Liberals squashed it as well. so yes it was a lie.
For this to be true, it would be necessary for a semi-large contingent of liberals to have argued against, and taken active steps to shut down, the single-payer option. Can you point to some such coalition or group that is both certifiably liberal and who argued thusly?
Just to be clear: I imagine your definition of liberal and mine are fairly different. Obama is not "far left," for example, and neither are Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, or the like. Find someone like Bernie Sanders, Barbara Boxer, Noam Chomsky, or etc. who took steps to kill the single-payer option.
ludin said:
what they propse is actual competition in the market place obamacare is not competition in the market place. what the article proposes is allowing for people to buy insurance across state lines which is something republicans have proposed for years.
Yes, the article does propose that.
ludin said:
that is true market competition. obamacare doesn't allow you to buy insurance across state lines.
I disagree. Section 1333 allows states to enter into compacts which allow insurance sales across state lines. I bought my insurance on the market place from BCBS of Texas--I don't live in Texas.
The arrangement is similar to any other mass marketing of a necessary commodity. I can cross state lines and buy a candy bar without the two states in question having any formal agreement. But (for good reason) I cannot simply plop down a huge factory farm in, say, Iowa and ship all my produce to California without abiding by some regulations, some of which are drawn by the Federal government, others of which are decided by inter-state compact.
ludin said:
if the article only said what you thought it said but it didn't.
Didn't it? The question was whether conservatives think that opening exchanges would reduce prices of health care or not. You said, in post 345, something to the effect that this was a lie which almost every republican knew.
ludin said:
obamacare is not true competition that is why almost all insurance companies are seeking 1-30 and in some cases 70% increases in their premium rates for next year.
it is why in the first year insurance premiums soared 40% on average across the nation. it is why the 2nd year we saw 20-40% increases.
I agree with this, but not for the same reasons. We simply cannot have competition in health care coverage. I don't mean that we ought not to have--i.e. that there's some moral imperative about it (although I do think such imperative exists). Rather, I think the simple fact is that big businesses, and insurance in particular, will always be subject to some level of collusion. It's to insurers' advantage to drive up prices, and if all of them do it, offering slightly different bells and whistles, they'll all make more money.
ludin said:
It doesn't matter how it is done. you can't demand insurance companies provide X services and then think it is going to lower costs.
it isn't.
Don't mistake cost for price. The cost is disconnected from the price in the case of health insurance and health care.