Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Repeal and Replace
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Repeal and Replace (Read 1139 times)
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 2470
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: Repeal and Replace
Reply #110 - Aug 2nd, 2017 at 12:22pm
Print Post  
Don_G wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 12:07pm:
I'm just fortunate that I don't have those expenses to deal with so my assets in my house, property and in the bank are approaching two million. No big deal, I'm just a retired worker that has taken advantage of that which my system has offered.


Yes, every leftist on message boards is rich and just want to pay more taxes.  Yet you don't ...
  

Greg Gutfeld - I became a conservative by being around liberals and I became a libertarian by being around conservatives

Matt Stone - I hate conservatives, but I really f'ing hate liberals
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
stevea
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 842
Location: Ohio
Joined: Jul 24th, 2011
Re: Repeal and Replace
Reply #111 - Aug 4th, 2017 at 8:37am
Print Post  

Quote:
stevea:  Disagree.  The reason that health insurance was ~30% higher in NY & NJ than TX and NM has to do with state laws that make suing medicos for profit much easier.  This forces doctors to carry much heavier insurance and to perform all sorts of 'CYA' procedures to avoid suites.

You can remove the state insurance borders the day you remove the state laws - and IMO that sort of Federalism is exactly the wrong direction for any sort of libertarianism.  No the ppl of Indiana do not need to subsidize NY & NJ ambulance-chasers and scammers.

'loser pays' in civil courts is the easy solution. Each state can do as they please, but should bear the cost & responsibility of their decisions.


Quote:
kaz:  Ah, the old liberal trick that we get only one thing and that must solve all problems.  Of course cross state sales won't solve the problem of mandates or tort reform.  Here's the trick.  Those should be done too.  But to argue we can't do one without the others is silly.  Solve one problem at a time and keep going.

Cross state sales provide economies of scale.  That's the problem it's intended to solve.  Not every other problem, of which you mentioned a couple legitimate OTHER issues

And you think allowing free trade across state lines is ANTI-libertarian?  That's just whacked.

BTW, read the commerce clause.  This is a legitimate Constitutional power of government now, not like all the stupid crap that isn't that the Federal government keeps taking.  The purpose of the commerce clause was in fact to allow the Feds to reduce trade barriers between the States.

And you think that's un libertarian?  I'm frankly pretty surprised given other points you've posted


Kaz, love your posts generally but you are way wrong on this one.

Providing a insurance service in NJ under NJ law vs offering a similar service in Tx under Tx law is NOT interstate trade at all.  The commerce clause doesn't apply.  It only says that Congress can regulate interstate commerce - not that they can regulate localization of pricing.  These are two substantially similar services offered according to very different local conditions and cost structures.

Do you also believe that earthquake insurance for Indiana and California should cost the b/c that is equally ridiculous.   It NOT a trade barrier involved, it's an actual difference in cost of services.

The other factoid in the mix is that each state separately has authority to regulate insurers creating financial reqs - and that is also quite reasonable.  A home insurer along the San Andreas fault needs way deeper pockets than one operating in Chicago due to the probability of the massive at-once calamity.
--
States can and do create reasonable regulation for insurers, appropriate to their localized needs.  That is no more a restraint of interstate trade than are reasonable local building codes based on local conditions.

Insurers can and do choose the pricing of their service based on the costs of the local service area (often by county or zipcode).  They are not required to sell services w/o respect to their costs.

If I understand your position, it's a one-size-fits-all insurance companies services & costs that demands coercive, centralized, one-size-fits-all anti-libertarian thought here.  Allowing each state to regulate is far more decentralized and libertarian.   Insurance companies pricing to the local market is the free-market solution.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 18955
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Repeal and Replace
Reply #112 - Aug 4th, 2017 at 9:23am
Print Post  
stevea wrote on Aug 4th, 2017 at 8:37am:
Kaz, love your posts generally but you are way wrong on this one.

Providing a insurance service in NJ under NJ law vs offering a similar service in Tx under Tx law is NOT interstate trade at all.  The commerce clause doesn't apply.  It only says that Congress can regulate interstate commerce - not that they can regulate localization of pricing.  These are two substantially similar services offered according to very different local conditions and cost structures.

Do you also believe that earthquake insurance for Indiana and California should cost the same or that flood insurance in New Orleans vs Tuscon should be he same  b/c that is equally ridiculous.

It NOT a trade barrier involved, it's an actual difference in cost of services.

The other factoid in the mix is that each state separately has authority to regulate insurers operating on the state.  They have to meet financial tests that meet their requirements.  It would be nice to standardize the evaluation methods, but NOT the requirement.    A home insurer along the San Andreas fault needs way deeper pockets than one operating in Chicago.

I'm pretty certain that if someone in NJ wanted to agree to receive all their medical care in Tx and to have only Tx law and courts as the only venue for objections that they could in theory get the lower Tx insurance rates.   No market for it of course, but disallowing that would be a restraint of interstate trade.

Your one-size-fits-all insurance companies services demand is the centralized, one-size-fits-all anti-libertarian thought here.  Allowing each state to regulate is far more decentralized and libertarian.

I agree but... My state and many others force me to buy insurance from approved in-state insurers. This allows approved in-state insurers to charge higher prices. It's a restriction of competition.
It can also be inconvenient and time consuming. For instance, I bought a snowmobile several years ago to keep at a friends house in another state, for use when I visit. I called the insurance agent who handles my motorcycle insurance, and discovered that the law forbids him from insuring a snowmobile that isn't registered in this state. (I registered it in the state it's in and where I use it, because that was much cheaper than paying the fees to ride an out-of-state snowmobile there.) Anyway, I ended up using the same insurance company but I have to have the policy written by an agent in the state where the snowmobile is, and they charge more for the same policy there. Maybe when the registration runs out, I'll re-register it here and start paying the out-of-state snowmobile use fees? No, I won't. I won't save enough on the cheaper insurance to cover the use fees.

There is restraint of trade going on here (and not just in motor vehicle insurance. Medical insurers permitted to sell policies in my state are limited by law and there aren't enough of them competing) and state governments are doing it. The national government should stop it.

I don't believe the "tests" that determine which insurers are allowed to sell me policies are rational, and even if they were, I don't need the nanny state to keep me safe from buying 'bad' products from 'bad' companies.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
stevea
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 842
Location: Ohio
Joined: Jul 24th, 2011
Re: Repeal and Replace
Reply #113 - Aug 4th, 2017 at 10:08am
Print Post  
Don_G wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 12:07pm:
...
I'm just fortunate that I don't have those expenses to deal with so my assets in my house, property and in the bank are approaching two million. No big deal, I'm just a retired worker that has taken advantage of that which my system has offered.


Let's see -2 million Canadian pesos  <$1.6m USD, I've made 60+% of that amount on investments in the few months since Trump took office.  My Sis in California has a ~2200sf shack on a postage stamp lot worth that.  No family money or significant inheritance involved.   You are correct that it's not too much for a reasonably successful person approaching retirement.  Good on you, but we'd both be worth a lot more if government wasn't taking a huge bite for redistribution.

You're pretty ignorant of finance and maybe reality if you believe "I don't have those expenses".  YOU already paid for all those government services and more in your taxes chum.    Review "Ponzi scheme" and get back to us.

I always find it interesting to see how  retiring going on the public dole converts reasonable ppl into gibbering left-tard idiots, so let's review this clearly.   While you were earning, your government forcible took your work-product value away by taxation, gave some to others to keep them docile, spend some to keep you enslaved,    and spent the rest in other inefficient endeavors.  Now YOU are the one they are paying to be a docile compliant voter, to be in favor of more exploitation of the young to serve the old.

You are crowing about how great it is that you are a Canadian government slave, b/c eventually they give you back a small fraction of what they took. Slaves are made in such ways.  Perhaps a better quote, "As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master" - A.Lincoln.

--

Perhaps the most interesting part is that no evil genius invented this horrific system - it's just a negative sort of self-organizing system.  Force + democracy + self-interest => forcible redistribution + exploitation .  At least communism is open and explicit about redistribution.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 2470
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: Repeal and Replace
Reply #114 - Aug 4th, 2017 at 10:21am
Print Post  
stevea wrote on Aug 4th, 2017 at 8:37am:
Kaz, love your posts generally


Thanks!

stevea wrote on Aug 4th, 2017 at 8:37am:
but you are way wrong on this one

It's happened before, it will again.  That's why my mind is always open to new information

stevea wrote on Aug 4th, 2017 at 8:37am:
Providing a insurance service in NJ under NJ law vs offering a similar service in Tx under Tx law is NOT interstate trade at all.  The commerce clause doesn't apply.  It only says that Congress can regulate interstate commerce - not that they can regulate localization of pricing.  These are two substantially similar services offered according to very different local conditions and cost structures

Of course a New Jersey company selling a product to a Texas customer is interstate commerce.  If it wasn't, there would not be any such thing as interstate commerce as all products and services sold across State lines are subject to local regulations.  Just some products are more regulated than others.

And who said anything about regulating pricing?  You completely lose me on that.  Who said the New Jersey company has to charge New Jersey prices?  Why would they?

stevea wrote on Aug 4th, 2017 at 8:37am:
Do you also believe that earthquake insurance for Indiana and California should cost the b/c that is equally ridiculous.   It NOT a trade barrier involved, it's an actual difference in cost of services

I agree, but I don't see any connection in any way this related to the point.  Where does the New Jersey company having to charge New Jersey prices come to play in any way?

stevea wrote on Aug 4th, 2017 at 8:37am:
The other factoid in the mix is that each state separately has authority to regulate insurers creating financial reqs - and that is also quite reasonable.  A home insurer along the San Andreas fault needs way deeper pockets than one operating in Chicago due to the probability of the massive at-once calamity.
--
States can and do create reasonable regulation for insurers, appropriate to their localized needs.  That is no more a restraint of interstate trade than are reasonable local building codes based on local conditions.

Insurers can and do choose the pricing of their service based on the costs of the local service area (often by county or zipcode).  They are not required to sell services w/o respect to their costs.

If I understand your position, it's a one-size-fits-all insurance companies services & costs that demands coercive, centralized, one-size-fits-all anti-libertarian thought here.  Allowing each state to regulate is far more decentralized and libertarian.   Insurance companies pricing to the local market is the free-market solution.


You don't understand my position.  My position is that a New Jersey insurer can sell to a Texas customer.  They need to work out the price.

The Founders anticipated States trying to use the things you're talking about to manipulate trade for the purpose of restricting out of State competitors, which is why it gives congress the power to "regulate" commerce.  You're assuming facts not in evidence, they actually have two choices:

1)  Allow out of State corporations to sell policies to local customers, but the corporations must follow all local insurance regulations

2)  Allow out of State corporations to sell policies to local customers, but they only need to follow Federal regulations

So for example, California has very high supposedly environmental auto regulations.  Congress has the power to waive those regulations for out of State auto companies.  On the other hand, they don't have to.

What is not a libertarian response in any way is to advocate the current system where States just make it illegal to buy a policy from an out of State business even if they meet local regulations
  

Greg Gutfeld - I became a conservative by being around liberals and I became a libertarian by being around conservatives

Matt Stone - I hate conservatives, but I really f'ing hate liberals
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2411
Location: British Columbia
Joined: May 8th, 2017
Re: Repeal and Replace
Reply #115 - Aug 4th, 2017 at 10:57am
Print Post  
stevea wrote on Aug 4th, 2017 at 8:37am:
The other factoid in the mix is that each state separately has authority to regulate insurers creating financial reqs - and that is also quite reasonable.  A home insurer along the San Andreas fault needs way deeper pockets than one operating in Chicago due to the probability of the massive at-once calamity.
.


Such a simple concept Steve, that it's not necessary to say more than just that. The rest is window dressing for 'reasonable' people.

There are many lessons Americans have to learn about insurance and how it has to work. One of which is learning that insurance companies' "experience" dictates how much they will need to charge for overhead before profit is even factored in.

And this is directly related to health insurnce in many ways you are surely aware of by now. Not to have to even mention that profit blows private insurancee out of the water, compared to the cost at which governments are providing it throughout the world.

Not only libertarians are left flatfooted with no valid argument for private insurance for health care, greedy capitalists are too!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 2470
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: Repeal and Replace
Reply #116 - Aug 4th, 2017 at 11:22am
Print Post  
Don_G wrote on Aug 4th, 2017 at 10:57am:
Such a simple concept Steve, that it's not necessary to say more than just that. The rest is window dressing for 'reasonable' people.

There are many lessons Americans have to learn about insurance and how it has to work. One of which is learning that insurance companies' "experience" dictates how much they will need to charge for overhead before profit is even factored in.

And this is directly related to health insurnce in many ways you are surely aware of by now. Not to have to even mention that profit blows private insurancee out of the water, compared to the cost at which governments are providing it throughout the world.

Not only libertarians are left flatfooted with no valid argument for private insurance for health care, greedy capitalists are too!


Duh, dar, government provides the same services as private industries, you just subtract the profit!  Drool, drool.

Got it dolt, you don't know shit about capitalism.  So all they teach in Canadian schools now is socialism and Democrat talking points?
  

Greg Gutfeld - I became a conservative by being around liberals and I became a libertarian by being around conservatives

Matt Stone - I hate conservatives, but I really f'ing hate liberals
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 18955
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Repeal and Replace
Reply #117 - Aug 4th, 2017 at 4:11pm
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Aug 4th, 2017 at 10:21am:
Thanks!

It's happened before, it will again.  That's why my mind is always open to new information

Of course a New Jersey company selling a product to a Texas customer is interstate commerce.  If it wasn't, there would not be any such thing as interstate commerce as all products and services sold across State lines are subject to local regulations.  Just some products are more regulated than others.

And who said anything about regulating pricing?  You completely lose me on that.  Who said the New Jersey company has to charge New Jersey prices?  Why would they?

I agree, but I don't see any connection in any way this related to the point.  Where does the New Jersey company having to charge New Jersey prices come to play in any way?


You don't understand my position.  My position is that a New Jersey insurer can sell to a Texas customer.  They need to work out the price.

The Founders anticipated States trying to use the things you're talking about to manipulate trade for the purpose of restricting out of State competitors, which is why it gives congress the power to "regulate" commerce.  You're assuming facts not in evidence, they actually have two choices:

1)  Allow out of State corporations to sell policies to local customers, but the corporations must follow all local insurance regulations

2)  Allow out of State corporations to sell policies to local customers, but they only need to follow Federal regulations

So for example, California has very high supposedly environmental auto regulations.  Congress has the power to waive those regulations for out of State auto companies.  On the other hand, they don't have to.

What is not a libertarian response in any way is to advocate the current system where States just make it illegal to buy a policy from an out of State business even if they meet local regulations
Good arguments, I agree. Another libertarian response, in addition, is to say that both the state and national regulations are counterproductive. They don't actually protect people from anything, and they make things cost more. They have the added down side of encouraging insurance companies to try to buy regulations that are favorable to their company, helping to corrupt anyone in government who isn't corrupt anyway. Cry
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 2470
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: Repeal and Replace
Reply #118 - Aug 4th, 2017 at 4:28pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Aug 4th, 2017 at 4:11pm:
Good arguments, I agree. Another libertarian response, in addition, is to say that both the state and national regulations are counterproductive. They don't actually protect people from anything, and they make things cost more. They have the added down side of encouraging insurance companies to try to buy regulations that are favorable to their company, helping to corrupt anyone in government who isn't corrupt anyway. Cry


Agreed, but we were focusing on the more narrow question of interstate sales of insurance policies as proposed by Rand Paul, not the general question of a libertarian solution, which of course would be no regulation.  Texas consumers could buy or not buy whatever insurance they want or don't want
  

Greg Gutfeld - I became a conservative by being around liberals and I became a libertarian by being around conservatives

Matt Stone - I hate conservatives, but I really f'ing hate liberals
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 18955
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Repeal and Replace
Reply #119 - Aug 4th, 2017 at 4:37pm
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Aug 4th, 2017 at 4:28pm:
Agreed, but we were focusing on the more narrow question of interstate sales of insurance policies as proposed by Rand Paul, not the general question of a libertarian solution, which of course would be no regulation.  Texas consumers could buy or not buy whatever insurance they want or don't want
I realized that, but the reason the narrow question exists at all is because of the larger question of government control of economic and financial transactions.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Repeal and Replace
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy