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 ... 11 12 [13] 14  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Repeal and Replace (Read 2478 times)
Don_G
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5904
Location: British Columbia
Joined: May 8th, 2017
Re: Repeal and Replace
Reply #120 - Aug 4th, 2017 at 8:09pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Aug 4th, 2017 at 4:37pm:
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.


This thread is obsolete. There's not going to be any repeal and replace. Obamacare can't be improved upon, it can only be added to in an effort to make it even better.

And the price isn't going to match the best in the world without just giving up the hate for Obama and black people, and going to universal, single payer, government health care.

Period!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4747
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: Repeal and Replace
Reply #121 - Aug 4th, 2017 at 8:56pm
Print Post  
Don_G wrote on Aug 4th, 2017 at 8:09pm:
This thread is obsolete. There's not going to be any repeal and replace.

Disagree.  Obamacare is going tits-up.  It's just a matter of time now.  Enrollment is going down and insurers are bailing out.  Healty care prices are through the roof..   Everyone sees what a colossal failure it is.

tick tock tick tock
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5904
Location: British Columbia
Joined: May 8th, 2017
Re: Repeal and Replace
Reply #122 - Aug 4th, 2017 at 9:04pm
Print Post  
SkyChief wrote on Aug 4th, 2017 at 8:56pm:
Disagree.  Obamacare is going tits-up.  It's just a matter of time now.  Enrollment is going down and insurers are bailing out.  Healty care prices are through the roof..   Everyone sees what a colossal failure it is.

tick tock tick tock


Disagree all you like Chief. You either adopt universal, government run, single payer health care or your fellow Americans pay the consequences of an inferior system of for-profit health care.

The Trump plan has failed and you know yourself that it will fail even more miserably as the R's buld courage to punish Trump.

Keepin the thread alive!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 3473
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: Repeal and Replace
Reply #123 - Aug 5th, 2017 at 9:15am
Print Post  
Don_G wrote on Aug 4th, 2017 at 9:04pm:
Disagree all you like Chief. You either adopt universal, government run, single payer health care or your fellow Americans pay the consequences of an inferior system of for-profit health care.

The Trump plan has failed and you know yourself that it will fail even more miserably as the R's buld courage to punish Trump.

Keepin the thread alive!


The most capitalist medical system left in the world is the best and you think the secret to keeping it is to eliminate the capitalism.

And when we try our most socialist endeavor ever (Obamacare) and it's going belly up, that just proves to you how right you were.

Not exactly an "A" student, were you?
  

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: 992
Location: Ohio
Joined: Jul 24th, 2011
Re: Repeal and Replace
Reply #124 - Aug 5th, 2017 at 1:21pm
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Aug 4th, 2017 at 10:21am:
It's happened before, it will again.  That's why my mind is always open to new information



Great attitude.  I've apparently erroneously mistaken your claims, and responded to my erroneous assumption.  Our positions are closer, but not the same.


Quote:
Of course a New Jersey company selling a product to a Texas customer is interstate commerce.


No - not insurance.  The 1869 ruling, Paul v. Virginia  the Court held that "issuing a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce," effectively removing insurance from Federal commerce regulation.


Quote:
... 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



1). is what currently happens.  Aetna, Humana, Cigna, Anthem, Kaiser, ...  follow local regs in each state where they do biz.
But you seem to believe this restricts competition too much - no ?

2) Requires creating a new body of Federal regs, by taking unlawful powers.  It's federalism, anti-libertarianism.

You missed #3.
Each state is already free to de-regulate and permit oo-state or oo-country insurers to sell w/in their state.  Several have, but it didn't improve competition.   Good article on the topic.
http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/issue_briefs/2012/rwjf401409


Quote:
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.


I don't agree.  CA won't register new vehicles that don't meet state standards.    I suppose you could buy a non-compliant new vehicle in California (no interstate commerce restraint) but w/o any hope of registering it locally it practically won't happen.  Congress has no power to tell California which vehicles to register.


Quote:
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


Agreed, but why do you imagine that a company that meets state regs doesn't register and do business there already ?  The big players like Aetna, Anthem ... do register in a lot of states, and the small-fry likely can't meet other-state regs, or else can't afford to do business there, so they stay out of that market.

I just don't believe that a company that could meet state regs and has the money to expand, avoids taking the business.
That is unrealistic.

The current systems isn't very good (too much regulation & licensing, unnecessarily diverse).
Federalizing it isn't IMO a libertarian solution at all, tho' it creates a little efficiency by removing a few arbitrary local barriers (whole constructing new federal ones).
Maybe just making default contractual disclosure reqsand removing state regs  would do it. [hey we get a triple-F rating from Moody, and you'll have to sue us in Mongolian courts, but here's the policy].





  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5904
Location: British Columbia
Joined: May 8th, 2017
Re: Repeal and Replace
Reply #125 - Aug 5th, 2017 at 1:28pm
Print Post  
Steve, did you take part on Jude Wanniski's Supply side forum, or the later Supplysideforum that was hosted by Robert Churchill?
If so then you would know me as monty.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 3473
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: Repeal and Replace
Reply #126 - Aug 5th, 2017 at 2:09pm
Print Post  
stevea wrote on Aug 5th, 2017 at 1:21pm:
No - not insurance.  The 1869 ruling, Paul v. Virginia  the Court held that "issuing a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce," effectively removing insurance from Federal commerce regulation

Wow, a double negative.  An idiotic ruling (again) by the Supreme Court.  Good thing for me we ignore the 10th amendment, huh?  One stupidity fixes the other in this case

stevea wrote on Aug 5th, 2017 at 1:21pm:
1). is what currently happens.  Aetna, Humana, Cigna, Anthem, Kaiser, ...  follow local regs in each state where they do biz


I addressed this

stevea wrote on Aug 5th, 2017 at 1:21pm:
But you seem to believe this restricts competition too much - no ?


Well, yeah, but I oppose all regulations as a violation of the fifth amendment.  My business is my property.  Regulations are government restrictions on my property with my not having violated any law or received due process

stevea wrote on Aug 5th, 2017 at 1:21pm:
2) Requires creating a new body of Federal regs, by taking unlawful powers.  It's federalism, anti-libertarianism

It's also what Obamacare is.  That horse it out of the barn

stevea wrote on Aug 5th, 2017 at 1:21pm:
You missed #3.
Each state is already free to de-regulate and permit oo-state or oo-country insurers to sell w/in their state.  Several have, but it didn't improve competition.   Good article on the topic.
http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/issue_briefs/2012/rwjf401409


Right, I want to remove barriers.  This doesn't contradict anything I said.  The Federal government lowering barriers to interstate commerce is the actual meaning of the commerce clause



stevea wrote on Aug 5th, 2017 at 1:21pm:
I don't agree.  CA won't register new vehicles that don't meet state standards.    I suppose you could buy a non-compliant new vehicle in California (no interstate commerce restraint) but w/o any hope of registering it locally it practically won't happen.  Congress has no power to tell California which vehicles to register


I already addressed this.  The framers saw this a mile away.  The commerce clause gives the congress the power to stop them from doing that

stevea wrote on Aug 5th, 2017 at 1:21pm:
Agreed, but why do you imagine that a company that meets state regs doesn't register and do business there already ?  The big players like Aetna, Anthem ... do register in a lot of states, and the small-fry likely can't meet other-state regs, or else can't afford to do business there, so they stay out of that market

I just don't believe that a company that could meet state regs and has the money to expand, avoids taking the business.
That is unrealistic.

All States block out of State companies from selling medical insurance.  That's why there are roughly 50 Blue Cross Blue Shields, not one with subsidiaries



stevea wrote on Aug 5th, 2017 at 1:21pm:
The current systems isn't very good (too much regulation & licensing, unnecessarily diverse).
Federalizing it isn't IMO a libertarian solution at all, tho' it creates a little efficiency by removing a few arbitrary local barriers (whole constructing new federal ones).
Maybe just making default contractual disclosure reqsand removing state regs  would do it. [hey we get a triple-F rating from Moody, and you'll have to sue us in Mongolian courts, but here's the policy]


Calling the Feds knocking down State restrictions on out of state insurers "Federalizing" insurance is argument ad absurdum
  

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: 23242
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Repeal and Replace
Reply #127 - Aug 5th, 2017 at 7:20pm
Print Post  
Don_G wrote on Aug 5th, 2017 at 1:28pm:
Steve, did you take part on Jude Wanniski's Supply side forum, or the later Supplysideforum that was hosted by Robert Churchill?
If so then you would know me as monty.
You're Monty Python? How cool... Except that you're dead aren't you? Cry
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 23242
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Repeal and Replace
Reply #128 - Aug 5th, 2017 at 7:26pm
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Aug 5th, 2017 at 2:09pm:
Wow, a double negative.  An idiotic ruling (again) by the Supreme Court.  Good thing for me we ignore the 10th amendment, huh?  One stupidity fixes the other in this case
A good Congress, representing both the people and the states, would have removed some Supreme Court justices from the bench after that decision.

Malfeasance in office would have sufficed as a charge.

While they may not be co-equal in their lust for power, there certainly seems to be collusion to tyrannize us between them. Angry Angry Angry
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 23242
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Repeal and Replace
Reply #129 - Aug 8th, 2017 at 10:03am
Print Post  
I good short read mostly about how Britain's NHS really works.

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com.au/2017/08/the-big-lie-of-socialized-medicine.ht...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 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