If this is all true, then where is the outrage? Where are NYT Bestsellers? The Pulitzer winners? Why aren't these practices being extended into homeowners and auto insurance?
I don't doubt at all corporations would try to maximize profits, but if they are actively engaging in this type of behavior day in and day out then there would be an enourmous backlash and I'd be part of it. Truth is I, like most americans (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06 ... -coverage/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) am happy with my health insurance.
They are, every corporation does it and politicians use it all the time. This isn't a grand conspiracy it's just how P.R. works, it manipulates public opinion. Do you know who Edward Bernays is? He is the father of P.R. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I posted this in another thread
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.
DelPen wrote:I'd be for expanding the income limit to allow those who trulely can't afford insurance that don't qulify now, and that's 10% of the uninsured or about 5 million people, if the government will remove restrictions on allowing companies to pool plans across state lines.
If what government will remove restrictions on allowing companies to pool plans across state lines?
The feds? Has to be some federal restriction for the Health Care Choice Act to exist in Congress.
DelPen wrote:I'd be for expanding the income limit to allow those who trulely can't afford insurance that don't qulify now, and that's 10% of the uninsured or about 5 million people, if the government will remove restrictions on allowing companies to pool plans across state lines.
If what government will remove restrictions on allowing companies to pool plans across state lines?
The feds? Has to be some federal restriction for the Health Care Choice Act to exist in Congress.
HomerPenguin wrote:
If what government will remove restrictions on allowing companies to pool plans across state lines?
The feds? Has to be some federal restriction for the Health Care Choice Act to exist in Congress.
Not very supportive of state sovereignty, eh?
How is allowing people to buy insurance across state lines an issue of sovreignty? I guess I can't order a laptop that will ship from California if you want to use your logic.
I cannot see how one can propose a health care package in order to attempt to reduce costs and increase coverage without addressing a major factor in the rising costs of health care, and that is tort reform. I also cannot see how you can have the committee that drafts this thing consist almost entirely of lawyers, but not one single physician (despite the fact that there are several in Congress, including one I know personally).
How is allowing people to buy insurance across state lines an issue of sovreignty?
Because it renders the states powerless to regulate insurance carriers, something they've traditionally assumed the right to do?
I guess I can't order a laptop that will ship from California if you want to use your logic.
If your state passed a law that made said purchase illegal, that law survived the inevitable court challenges, and then the federal government came along and said the purchase was OK regardless of your state's law, then wouldn't that also violate state sovereignty? Do we typically like it when DC chips away at the authority of state governments? Or would it be OK in this particular case? And if so, why?
doublem wrote:
Actually, business played an important role in the holocaust http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; should we get rid of private companies becasue they did something terrible? The problem with that argument is that you would have to believe to Stalin and Hilter were following those ideologues. Do you think Stalin was having meetings about Marx and Lenin in the Kremlin? It was about power and control not ideologues.
doublem wrote:
Right, it implies choice to shop, not choice to do much of anything else. Consumers have all kind of choices like what shoes to buy, but that isn't what a citizens choice is, a consumer is a solely private choice, a citizens choice actually requires decisions in the public circle.
God bless ya, doublem, and good luck to you. I think I'm done banging my head against the proverbial wall for a while... this and the stuff in the "Ssssocialist" thread are just too funny.
And for those of you out there who want government involved in health care, the market, or even dog-catching, you should spend just one day putting a publicly solicited bid document together and dealing with the folks who hand out these documents. It's good for a laugh, or at least "big alcohol"... they'll be getting my money tonight!
Disclaimer: my views are not totally informed by such experiences. I'd still philosophically oppose such intrusions even if the impossible did happen and government functioned efficiently!
How is allowing people to buy insurance across state lines an issue of sovreignty?
Because it renders the states powerless to regulate insurance carriers, something they've traditionally assumed the right to do?
I guess I can't order a laptop that will ship from California if you want to use your logic.
If your state passed a law that made said purchase illegal, that law survived the inevitable court challenges, and then the federal government came along and said the purchase was OK regardless of your state's law, then wouldn't that also violate state sovereignty? Do we typically like it when DC chips away at the authority of state governments? Or would it be OK in this particular case? And if so, why?
Government at all levels must not violate the rights and freedoms of the individual. Again, states are closer to the individual and therefore a superior layer of government, but state-level governments still can be tyrannical.
Guinness wrote:This is why I've always liked you, MWB. You're never bashful about calling a person out!
I'm getting hitched in 2 weeks. I can't be packin' on the pounds right now!!
OMG!
Congrats!!!
Thanks dagny... It's coming up SO quickly! I'm getting crushed at work these days and with the wedding prep, and an organization or two I'm active with, I'm going half-mad. A fella's gotta have a beer!
Guinness wrote:Government at all levels must not violate the rights and freedoms of the individual. Again, states are closer to the individual and therefore a superior layer of government, but state-level governments still can be tyrannical.
But I don't think the solution to state government tyranny is federal government tyranny, is it? Recall that I specifically asked who would be removing those state regs, and the response was "the feds."
Corvidae wrote:The fact that the government option was abandoned makes me seriously believe that they never planned on having it in the first place.
The old false front, feint for the real deal .... Works every time when complete overwhelming power won't get it done... Ok so you'll settle for the khia then....
Corvidae wrote:The fact that the government option was abandoned makes me seriously believe that they never planned on having it in the first place.
The old false front, feint for the real deal .... Works every time when complete overwhelming power won't get it done... Ok so you'll settle for the khia then....
I have no idea why overwhelming power couldn't get it done.
Guinness wrote:Government at all levels must not violate the rights and freedoms of the individual. Again, states are closer to the individual and therefore a superior layer of government, but state-level governments still can be tyrannical.
But I don't think the solution to state government tyranny is federal government tyranny, is it? Recall that I specifically asked who would be removing those state regs, and the response was "the feds."
Interesting supposition that one level of government can tyrannize another...
There should be no role for federal government in this question at all, aside from role of prosecuting occurrences of violations of individual liberty. Government should work up, from the individual. Denizens of states should require that their states don't tyrannize them rather than federal government imposing upon state government, I agree. But the philosophical objective -- allowing individuals to choose for themselves -- is admireable.
Oh, and congratulations.
Thanks! I'm both and (first use of the 'scared' emote... seems appropriate ).
doublem wrote:
Actually, business played an important role in the holocaust http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; should we get rid of private companies becasue they did something terrible? The problem with that argument is that you would have to believe to Stalin and Hilter were following those ideologues. Do you think Stalin was having meetings about Marx and Lenin in the Kremlin? It was about power and control not ideologues.
doublem wrote:
Right, it implies choice to shop, not choice to do much of anything else. Consumers have all kind of choices like what shoes to buy, but that isn't what a citizens choice is, a consumer is a solely private choice, a citizens choice actually requires decisions in the public circle.
God bless ya, doublem, and good luck to you. I think I'm done banging my head against the proverbial wall for a while... this and the stuff in the "Ssssocialist" thread are just too funny.
And for those of you out there who want government involved in health care, the market, or even dog-catching, you should spend just one day putting a publicly solicited bid document together and dealing with the folks who hand out these documents. It's good for a laugh, or at least "big alcohol"... they'll be getting my money tonight!
Disclaimer: my views are not totally informed by such experiences. I'd still philosophically oppose such intrusions even if the impossible did happen and government functioned efficiently!
So, do citizens have public choices or is everything just private choices? A lot of people do want government involved in health care and the markets, are they wrong becasue they don't have the absolute belief that markets will maximize freedom? Actually, there has never been a government that didn't want some government involved in the markets. Let's say that government did work for health care and the markets, it got better results, or better to whatever degree that you thought was right, why would you oppose it? Is there any amount of evidence that would change your mind?
Is consumer democracy something you want? " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Last edited by doublem on Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
