Originally posted by Zahlanzi
if you buy incredibly cheap stuff made in sweatshops in vietnam, and then vietnam does the right thing and imposes decent work conditions and wages, and your cheap crap goes up in price, you shouldn't have the nerve of complaining your crap is getting more expensive.


the previous situation with the healthcare was similar. the premiums were lower beca ...[text shortened]... ut your situation and would like you to know he will be thinking about you poor innocent victim.

So you believe that a guy who paid $4000 more for his health insurance isn't worse off? By definition when everyone pays a premium for compensation for a rare contingency, when the contingency occurs (here a pre-existing condition) a small group gets a huge benefit and those who pay the premium are worse off. The idea that Joe six pack is better off because someone else with a pre-existing condition does not have to pay the fair market value for their health insurance is absolutely ridiculous.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
if you buy incredibly cheap stuff made in sweatshops in vietnam, and then vietnam does the right thing and imposes decent work conditions and wages, and your cheap crap goes up in price, you shouldn't have the nerve of complaining your crap is getting more expensive.


the previous situation with the healthcare was similar. the premiums were lower beca ...[text shortened]... ut your situation and would like you to know he will be thinking about you poor innocent victim.

Not really sure what your saying here. Do you think that your 'cancer patient' is now entilted to insurance coverage because of the passage of the ACA?

I have two friends who are healthy and can not afford the most basic plan of the ACA. They have ...no... coverage at all. It will more affordable for them to pay the fine levied on them at tax time , then to purchase this 'affordable' health care.

Originally posted by quackquack
So you believe that a guy who paid $4000 more for his health insurance isn't worse off? By definition when everyone pays a premium for compensation for a rare contingency, when the contingency occurs (here a pre-existing condition) a small group gets a huge benefit and those who pay the premium are worse off. The idea that Joe six pack is better off be ...[text shortened]... does not have to pay the fair market value for their health insurance is absolutely ridiculous.

How does one determine the "fair market value"?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
How does one determine the "fair market value"?

see what the price is without government interference.

Originally posted by quackquack
see what the price is without government interference.

How does one determine a price without currency? How many bear skins is a triple bypass operation?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
How does one determine a price without currency? How many bear skins is a triple bypass operation?

We can have currency without the government deciding that certain people need to subsidize the costs of others.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
People generally don't like change, especially if it's a kind of charge where they cannot oversee the consequences.

But I thought people were voting for hope and change?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
How does one determine a price without currency? How many bear skins is a triple bypass operation?

This is a favourite of No1, so no surprises to see No1's minime parroting it.

There have been attempts to circumvent the states currency through things like barter cards, but goobermint doesn't like competition, makes it difficult for them to tax any and all transactions.

Originally posted by rwingett
Just because people say it hurts them doesn't mean it actually does.

Yeh people are too stupid to appreciate what the Anointed ones set up for them. If they lose their long time family doctor, pay more in premiums and get less service they just don't know how well off they are.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
People generally don't like anarchism either.

How about a middle ground where people make free choices in a market overseen by government to prevent force and fraud?

Originally posted by boonon
Not really sure what your saying here. Do you think that your 'cancer patient' is now entilted to insurance coverage because of the passage of the ACA?

I have two friends who are healthy and can not afford the most basic plan of the ACA. They have ...no... coverage at all. It will more affordable for them to pay the fine levied on them at tax time , then to purchase this 'affordable' health care.

Just the fact that the uninsured has only been reduce marginally ought to tell thinking people that there is just a shifting of who the uninsured are. Some people who didn't have insurance now do, and other who were insured now aren't.

My experience tells me that there is a large group in the middle who still have insurance, which costs more and isn't as good.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
How does one determine the "fair market value"?

What a provider and a purchaser agree on without coercion.

Originally posted by quackquack
We can have currency without the government deciding that certain people need to subsidize the costs of others.

No, you can't.

Originally posted by normbenign
What a provider and a purchaser agree on without coercion.

How many bear skins is a triple bypass operation?

Originally posted by normbenign
How about a middle ground where people make free choices in a market overseen by government to prevent force and fraud?

People are generally not too keen on that either, considering their aversion to death, plague and squalor.