LGP Political Discussion Thread

[Guinness]

• Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable.

When did libertarians become anti-state sovereignty?

When they became pro-individual liberty, maybe? It's not like federal government is the only baddy. State government is still force... it's a little closer to the individual, and therefore more effective than the national level, but it's still force.

[HomerPenguin]

• Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable.

When did libertarians become anti-state sovereignty?

When they became pro-individual liberty, maybe? It's not like federal government is the only baddy. State government is still force... it's a little closer to the individual, and therefore more effective than the national level, but it's still force.

And yet Ron Paul punts a bunch of things (abortion, for example) back to the state level that somebody like Goldwater, for example, believed should be individual freedoms. I thought the Paul/modern libertarian movement was pro-state, but this idea of forcing the states to stop regulating insurance is clearly not pro-state.

[Guinness]

And yet Ron Paul punts a bunch of things (abortion, for example) back to the state level that somebody like Goldwater, for example, believed should be individual freedoms. I thought the Paul/modern libertarian movement was pro-state, but this idea of forcing the states to stop regulating insurance is clearly not pro-state.

Where do you want us to start? Constitutionally, those powers expressly not given to the federal government are reserved to the states. Ron Paul is a Congressman. It's his job to see to it that the federal government behave within the restrictions of the Constitution. In terms of libertarian philosophy, the state is only another layer of government. A state government dictating what an individual may or may not purchase in terms of insurance is just as much a violation of an individual's liberty as the federal government doing so.

[Guinness]

Ah, tort reform. Another gift to big business.

I agree. The proper approach is education. It is juries who award these "damages". "Tort reform" will only diminish the power of a jury to rightfully grant damages as they see fit. If we spread the idea of individual liberty, then many of these outrageous judgments will cease.

[bhaw]

To reduce costs significantly... stop letting every a hole sue a doctor for any little thing that happens while they are trying to help you. A good chunk of the mark up is due to the ridiculous malpractice insurance premiums. That is also why there are fewer and fewer private practices. The malpractice insurance is unaffordable to the small practices, so doctors go to the large clinics and hospitals that can afford it, which are ultimately ruled by a corporation and board of governors that know nothing at all about medicine.

Ah, tort reform. Another gift to big business.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/1396 ... 2C_part_i/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'd say that the "limits" aren't enough. It doesn't necessarily have to be tort reform, although that would be a million times easier than changing the law suit happy ideals of the US. The reform would have to be enough to actually reduce the malpractice premiums. That article says that several states have imposed monetary limits, but what are those limits? If they cap it at $5M, what's the point? It also says that some of those include "non-economic" damages, so they haven't actually done much to help the situation.

Without knowing what the limits are (and I think we could both agree that given the people in charge, it probably isn't "limited" enough), it's hard to give any validity to the conclusion that tort reform would never help lower costs. Lastly, it just says it caps what a person can get out of a law suit. It doesn't reduce the number of law suits and awards being handed out.

So I don't think that article actually proves that tort reform would never help in any way.

[HomerPenguin]

Where do you want us to start? Constitutionally, those powers expressly not given to the federal government are reserved to the states. Ron Paul is a Congressman. It's his job to see to it that the federal government behave within the restrictions of the Constitution. In terms of libertarian philosophy, the state is only another layer of government. A state government dictating what an individual may or may not purchase in terms of insurance is just as much a violation of an individual's liberty as the federal government doing so.

That's fair, but how does having the federal government prohibit the states from regulating the insurance industry (which is what "allowing inter-state competition" means) within their borders square with this? That's what Mackey is proposing. Doesn't that violate the effort "to see to it that the federal government behave within the restrictions of the Constitution"?

[Guinness]

That's fair, but how does having the federal government prohibit the states from regulating the insurance industry (which is what "allowing inter-state competition" means) within their borders square with this? That's what Mackey is proposing. Doesn't that violate the effort "to see to it that the federal government behave within the restrictions of the Constitution"?

Is he proposing that?

• Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable.

I don't know anything regarding this proposition beyond what I read here, but it seems to me that he's not proposing a federal regulation at all. He's proposing the repeal of state laws which prevent intra-state competition. I admit I'm not the most up-to-speed on the particulars of this topic... I'm only coming at it from a libertarian/individual liberty point-of-view.

I'd advocate letting the individual make their choices, full-stop; whether that mean limiting the power of the federal government or that of that state governments. THAT is a free-market solution... by definition.

[HomerPenguin]

• Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable.

I don't know anything regarding this proposition beyond what I read here, but it seems to me that he's not proposing a federal regulation at all.

Every other item on his list was a directive for the federal government to undertake. This is a debate currently happening at the federal level. I think it's fair to say in context that he'd like to see these state regulations repealed by central fiat and, in fact, that's effectively what many in the "inter-state competition" camp are proposing, albeit just by doing an end-around past the state regs. If your interpretation is correct, then in my view he should have been clearer in how he wrote the piece. When you list 8 things you'd like to see government do and 7 of them are for the federal level, you ought to make it clear if the eighth one is intended for a different audience.

[Geezer]

Ah, tort reform. Another gift to big business.

HP, Do you oppose tort reform in the form of Great Britain's tort laws ,which I believe is a loser pays approach to lawsuits. The arguement is that this would reduce "lawsuit lottery" since a losing plaitiff/attorney would have to pay court costs.
I think Jonathan Edwards is a prime example of medicallawsuit abuse. He made his millions by suing baby doctors based on a premise that kids born with cerebral palsy had to condition due to faulty deliveries (breech births I believe). After winning cases ,most insurance companies just began to settle out of court. This premise was later proven to be false but it was after millions of dollars had been paid out and some baby doctors had left the state.
I disagree that tort reform is a gift to big business. About 25 years ago I worked at a railroad tank car plant that had a significant liabilty insurance cost. The plant went out of business for several reasons but those costs were a contributor as they are in most manufacturing businesses. One case that cost our corporation millions invloved a derailment in Florida. Some teenagers vadalized railroad tracks , a criminal act ,which caused the derailment. As a result, a car containing Chlorine gas leaked killing a sleeping family in a nearby home. The tank car was built to stringent government regs and had no faults. Because of the deep pockets approach our company and Union Crabide(the Chlorind gas producer) had to pay out millions even though neither was at fault. These are not isolated examples.

[doublem]

Since the "Free Market" vs government was brought up in this thread.

http://www.longviewinstitute.org/projec ... apprentice" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.bidstrup.com/economics.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ron`]

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archiv ... ive_costs/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ron`]

That's a pretty bold statement since it is historically proven that the Federal government wastes up to 30% of every dollar in on administrative costs

Source?

The current cash for clunkers program is estimated at a 33% markup for administrative costs, this article says much worse.... The numbers I saw in the national media nailed it at 6,000 cost for every 4,500$ rebate.... 1500 is 33% of the rebate...
http://www.1011now.com/home/headlines/52023412.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Geezer]

That's a pretty bold statement since it is historically proven that the Federal government wastes up to 30% of every dollar in on administrative costs

Source?

The current cash for clunkers program is estimated at a 33% markup for administrative costs, this article says much worse.... The numbers I saw in the national media nailed it at 6,000 cost for every 4,500$ rebate.... 1500 is 33% of the rebate...
http://www.1011now.com/home/headlines/52023412.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Actually Ron not all vehicles qualify for the 4500 so the 6000 represents more than 33%. I'd be surprised if many government progams didn't exceed 30% in adminstration cost. The pension plans, benefits and wages of federal jobs have to exceed what the average Joe or Jane private sector worker makes for comparable work.
I'll give a favorite example of mine regarding the feds at work. I bought my home in 1973 for 14,000 which I guess is 60-70 k in today's money. It was one of those fixer-uppers that I've been fixing ever since, but it was one of those solid brick houses built in the early 1900's. during that time period the feds bought up some older houses, deemed slums, about a 1/2 mile away from me to put in a housing project. The purchase and demolition were one time cost for what is generally considered a worthy goal; slum removal and providing decent low-cost housing. These were large 2 story town-house type buildings with 4 - 8 units per building. I did some calcs when they described the project in the paper and the cost was close to 35,000 per unit. They also put up an admin building with a manager type employee and some clerks. At the time I thought it would make sense buying up old houses and giving them to potential residents since it would have been cheaper and given them responsibilty. Some years later HUD spent more money tp put brick-type mini porches and storage units with gates. I thought this was a uneeded cosmetic waste. Did the feds ever put a new porch or storage unit on your place? It gets better. Less then 10 years later they decided the projects were too congested and spent more money tearing down about 25% of the buildings under some new government social engineers. I have a friend who's a policeman hired to strictly work the projects in town(fed job). About 2 years ago he told me there was a good buy on used appliances going on. He said HUD was buying all new appliances for the project units. I'm not sure what all they get(at no charge) but it's at least fridges and stove units. My buddy told me that periodically all the appliances were replaced. He said every 5 years but that seems too stupid even for the feds. I have appliances that I've kept for 20 years or better. The irony to me is that average people were buying "leftover" appliances from the projects who were getting new freebies. Of course these are the people whose tax money was being spent buying all the new stuff for people paying subsidized rent. Sorry for the long rant but when people question government waste I get fired up. I could write countless examples like this but it wouldn't convince liberals who view conservatives as heartless, selfish people.

[doublem]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/15/ ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[DelPen]

So we go from arbitrary caps from an independant company to caps formulated in some complicated way established by bureaucrats in Washington. I don't see how that's going to be any better,

[bhaw]

So we go from arbitrary caps from an independant company to caps formulated in some complicated way established by bureaucrats in Washington. I don't see how that's going to be any better,

The funny thing is that a) I'm sure there's some complicated bureaucratic formula that creates the current caps, and b) I bet the caps don't change much when they figure out how much it would cost to increase them from where they are.

I love the overall notion... the US government will find a way to do more with less. Can someone cite the last time that happened in real life?

[Guinness]

Every other item on his list was a directive for the federal government to undertake. This is a debate currently happening at the federal level. I think it's fair to say in context that he'd like to see these state regulations repealed by central fiat and, in fact, that's effectively what many in the "inter-state competition" camp are proposing, albeit just by doing an end-around past the state regs. If your interpretation is correct, then in my view he should have been clearer in how he wrote the piece. When you list 8 things you'd like to see government do and 7 of them are for the federal level, you ought to make it clear if the eighth one is intended for a different audience.

The only step in his proposal that is implies government be proactive is tort reform. I've expressed my opinion on that earlier. The rest of the steps he suggests really un-screw current government meddling. So I guess he is suggesting that federal government take action -- he's suggesting it get the hell out of the way... and that is an action.

[Ron`]

Guinness, I was aware of the larger percentage for the smaller rebate. I chose the lesser figure to confirm the claim of 33% administrative costs is not unsusual for a federal project. If you dig deeply into most reports on federal projects you will see that most don't include the true human costs such as benefits, retirements and salaries in full. At most they include salary costs. The reports tend to dwell on the customer costs and savings, not the business overhead per say. More brown numbers much like the rest of the trash they feed the public.

If you read the stimulous package, you can find some examples of administrative costs associated with each item buried in the package or hidden in glossy catch all statements. ie federal jobs just to pass out the money, track it, audit it, etc ...

[doublem]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sounds less likely that there will be a public option, if there was ever going to be one.

[HomerPenguin]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Sounds less likely that there will be a public option, if there was ever going to be one.

At this point they should scrap the whole thing and pass a $1 trillion giveaway to the insurance industry. It will waste the same amount of money and accomplish what they're going to accomplish anyway, but at least the true goal would be plain for everyone to see.

The only opposition I could imagine a bill like that generating in Congress is from Max Baucus, Chuck Grassley, and the rest of the insurance industry's employees, who would no doubt demand that the handout be at least $2 trillion.

[doublem]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Sounds less likely that there will be a public option, if there was ever going to be one.

At this point they should scrap the whole thing and pass a $1 trillion giveaway to the insurance industry. It will waste the same amount of money and accomplish what they're going to accomplish anyway, but at least the true goal would be plain for everyone to see.

The only opposition I could imagine a bill like that generating in Congress is from Max Baucus, Chuck Grassley, and the rest of the insurance industry's employees, who would no doubt demand that the handout be at least $2 trillion.

I clearly underestimated the power of big business in politics, there appears to be no government force strong enough to combat it. Everyone is worried about state tyranny, but as per usual in 21st century America the real problem is big business tyranny. It appears that the U.S. has stepped over the edge with no hope of recovery, hopefully Howard Dean keeps his word and runs someone against the democrats becasue they are as useless as the Republicans.

[Guinness]

Guinness, I was aware of the larger percentage for the smaller rebate. I chose the lesser figure to confirm the claim of 33% administrative costs is not unsusual for a federal project. If you dig deeply into most reports on federal projects you will see that most don't include the true human costs such as benefits, retirements and salaries in full. At most they include salary costs. The reports tend to dwell on the customer costs and savings, not the business overhead per say. More brown numbers much like the rest of the trash they feed the public.

If you read the stimulous package, you can find some examples of administrative costs associated with each item buried in the package or hidden in glossy catch all statements. ie federal jobs just to pass out the money, track it, audit it, etc ...

Hmm... I don't think you mean to respond to me, here. You're not likely to catch me squabbling about how much government wastes money! I agree with you that the costs are often greater than they appear.

[Guinness]

I clearly underestimated the power of big business in politics, there appears to be no government force strong enough to combat it.

[Guinness]

At this point they should scrap the whole thing and pass a $1 trillion giveaway to the insurance industry. It will waste the same amount of money and accomplish what they're going to accomplish anyway, but at least the true goal would be plain for everyone to see.

Or, "they" could recognize the futility of trying to manage the free market and stay the hell out of it? Government should do it's job - protect individuals from violations of their liberty through force/fraud. They'd save us a lot of time and money, and preserve our liberty.

[HomerPenguin]

I clearly underestimated the power of big business in politics, there appears to be no government force strong enough to combat it.

When did they start trying to combat it?