DVSentinel
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2011
- Messages
- 5,647
- Reaction score
- 1,579
- Location
- The Republic of Texas.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Please explain.
How? As I stated, with enough regulation and taxes, the end result looks the same.
Effective January 1, 2011
Insurers must spend 80% (for individual or small group insurers) or 85% (for large group insurers) of premium dollars on health costs and claims, leaving only 20% or 15% respectively for administrative costs and profits, subject to various waivers and exemptions. If an insurer fails to meet this requirement, there is no penalty, but a rebate must be issued to the policy holder. This policy is known as the 'Medical Loss Ratio'. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The act also creates a panel and funding, outside of the control of Congress. The panel allows the government to seize any company that the panel says is a threat to economy. It was intended to control "too big to fail" companies and allow them to broken up to minimize the damage done to the economy. Interestingly, there is no appeals process in the law, it can fund itself without oversight or going through congress and is given broad powers over business.
Nor do I see where it relates to minimum wage.
1. your opinion, accepted as your opinion.
2. And from my experiences, It sucks ass. Sure it doesn't cost anything but some taxes, but quality, technology and availability anything beyond basic visits falls way short of what is available in the US, outside of socialized facilities/systems in the US.
3. Did I say it was? Even if it is socialistic, It does not a socialist make. Just another potential commonality.
In that you have to have a capitalist based economy to have wages, you are correct. Under true Communism, there is no money, so there is no wages.
They do? Please present any evidence that "right-wingers" support minimum wage.
I haven't posted any opposition to "right-wingers" because they were not the subject of the discussion. Apparently you feel that because I am anti-left, that I am to the right, that is incorrect.
It is? Really? Maybe you believe that, but the current EPA is a rogue organization that is tremendously harmful to America.
Ah, opposing views are childish now, very good argument. (sarcasm)
And who says I support all of their regulation of schooling? Having any examples of schools teaching conservatism? I already given some of them teaching liberalism.
No, it is not always. Texas at least has to have theirs approved by a federal court, hence the current court fight over it. If it was strictly the state, then there would of been no case. The whole disapproval of the redistricting was entirely based upon it not creating enough "minority" representation.
And while I might not approve of all the republicans efforts, I do trust them more than the left and using "minority" representation as a criteria.
Obviously we greatly disagree on where American Liberalism stands.
You are correct, that would be Libertarians, although, Republicans believe in a greatly reduced form of government.
BTW, you keep bring up Republicans. Is there some reason you think I am a Republican? If so, then you haven't seen some of my posts. While I do agree with some of their stances, I also agree with many ideas from the left, I just don't like their methodologies.
Relative to whom or what? Stalin or Hitler? Even them, they are quickly approaching.
They don't? Really. They haven't support the anti-Christian activist? They didn't boo the inclusion of religion in their parties platform and their national convention?
You have your wings mixed up, Fascism is Nationalist Socialism. Hitler, Mussolini and other Fascist all had socialistic controls in their economic philosophies and even named themselves Socialist, it was their socio policies that were different. So now, they didn't embrace the socio-economic philosophy of Marx, just his economic philosophies. No, they didn't like Communism, because they were the authoritarian left, not the libertarian left. You may not like them being called socialist because they were too strongly Authoritarian and maybe you lean more to Libertarian, but left they most certainly were/are. The Nationalist portion of Fascism is really the only distinguishing feature between early fascism and American Liberalism, and we are seeing a trending towards that Nationalism.
Look, if you want to debate this, I'm more than willing to. But let's do so in a private debate so you can stop derailing my thread.
Your are the one who "derailed" your thread, my first comment was in keeping with the thread.
Private Debate is just argument and other than maybe some entertainment value, serves no useful purpose. The whole reason for debate is to present differing opinions, facts, philosophies, etc before an audience in-order to allow the audience to form their opinions. If you are debating with the intention of changing the beliefs of those who participate, then you need to get a better understanding of debate. People who participate already believe in their stances to the point they express them openly to influence others. You are probably not going to change the stance of someone debating, the only affect is upon the audience. I am not trying to change you or your opinion in anyway, I am only giving opinion, facts, viewpoints contrary to yours because I believe the audience needs to have differences to compare.
