Leak sites rely on leakers. If they filtered the content for a political purpose, then I can almost guarantee that the leaker would leak the documents again and point out Wikileak's bias. Problem solved.
Just watch the news. I am positive that the person who originally leaked the documents will be angry if they are filtered to suit a particular bias. That person would definitely leak the documents to the media and point out where they had been filtered.
You are just making stuff up. Give me an example of where Wikileaks has refused to post information that has been leaked to it to take sides in a dispute. Or, show me where they have selectively leaked material to make it look worse than it is. (Though I like how you are so worried about Wikileaks doing it when all the major news agencies do it all the time) You are saying "well, Wikileaks could do bad things" without any proof that they have.
Wikileaks does not spy. Let me repeat that for you... Wikileaks does not spy. Any information they receive comes from someone who wants to leak it (they are the spy). All the information on Wikileaks would be available to find for people who know how to look. It would just be posted in the backalleys of the internet (Usenet, IRC, bittiorrent, anonymous message boards) which is how it would be leaked without wikileaks. All Wikileaks does is make it easier for everyone (mainly the general public) to see the information. Anyone who has an actual interest in the information (governments, organized terrorist groups) has probably already hired or trained people who can find the information without Wikileaks. So, all you are advocating is to keep the general population ignorant. While this may help prevent embarrassment for governments (from the public at large), it does not save lives or prevent other governments from finding the information.
My opinion on the matter is similar to my opinion on how software exploits should be handled. When it is discovered (or leaked) then the relevant authority should be notified (usually government for leaks, software companies for exploits) so that the appropriate steps can be taken (informants can be withdrawn and sheltered, software can be patched). After that, the information should be disseminated to the public at large so that the public cannot be exploited through their ignorance. Just as I do not want the only one to know about an exploit to be people taking advantage of it (crackers), I do not want the only ones to know about a leak to be enemies of my government. If the enemies know about it, then it should be released so that the public can be informed as well.
So, this is like if the government gave a monopoly to a company to control all of the surface streets (interstates controlled by someone else) and charge whatever they want and ban anyone from the roads that they want.
And your argument would be "The local monopoly is not the problem. If someone has a problem with it, they could always use a helicopter!".
What line did Wikileaks cross? They did not leak the information. Someone else did (who had access). Do you think that the person who leaked them (who obviously wants the public to know about them) would have burned them all if Wikileaks had not published them? No. That person would have found other ways to publish them. You might have seen them hidden in the back alleys of the internet like Usenet and IRC and anonymous message boards. Other governments (who pay people to find information like this) would have gotten this information eventually. The only people who would be uninformed would be the public at large. You. Me. Well, you may want to stay ignorant, but I prefer not to. You want to blame anything bad that happens on Wikileaks, but the people who do the "bad" things would have gotten this information anyway. All you are advocating is to keep the unwashed masses ignorant and controllable.
Wikileaks exists to publish information in the public domain that would otherwise be suppressed. They are not spies. If they get information, then someone has already decided to release it to the public. They only facilitate getting it to the widespread public by posting it on the internet (instead of it spreading by personal networks through email, irc, bittorrent, ect). The governments are not learning anything that they would not have learned anyway (their intelligence services would have found it eventually). It is the public at large which benefits from Wikileaks, because they get information they would not have otherwise had.
That being the case, I do not want Wikileaks trying to keep me ignorant. They should do their best not to help spread information that can get people killed (naming informants and the like), but everything else should be fair game. I want them to have no agenda besides exposing leaked information so that the average person can find it. I don't care who it embarrasses. It is not their job to protect someone else's secrets when that person has already failed to do the same.
Oh... so if everyone else is doing it, then it is OK. If corruption is rampant then don't try to fix it. I'm sure that will make the world a better place...
People like you are the democracy ends up just as corrupt as any other form of government. There is no point in giving "the people" power. The majority is just going to squander it anyway.
You propose a terrible solution. There should be prioritization of data. A DNS lookup request should never be dropped. It is a minuscule amount of data but is a major bottleneck if it cannot be completed. If I am surfing the internet while I am downloading something on bittorrent, I would be fine with the ISP dropping 100 torrent packets per DNS request I make, as long as they never drop my DNS requests. Similar situation for VOIP. If I am on the phone with someone, I want my ISP to prioritize the VOIP over my bittorrent.
I have QoS rules set in my router at home. And, I can be maxing out my connection downloading a file while carrying on a VOIP call and surfing the internet. The priority I have is DNS->VOIP->HTTP->Bittorrent. I am using my connection efficiently (using my full bandwidth) while still having the quality of service that I want because priority is given to the traffic that needs it. (My calls are high quality and my web surfing is responsive)
I do remember back in the mid-90s when I would pause downloading big files while I surfed the internet or web pages would load very slowly. That is not the case now, and I do not want to go back to it.
This and net neutrality are not mutually exclusive. Net Neutrality is about not having premium users, not about not prioritizing traffic. My DNS request should be prioritized the same as anyone else's. The FCC was doing this and doing a good job at it. They enforced net neutrality based upon the common carrier laws. Then, Comcast took them to court and the Supreme Court ruled that the internet is not covered under the common carrier law. So, what needs to be done is for Congress to amend the common carrier law to make it cover the internet or (probably better) make a new law to specify what net neutrality is and give the FCC the authority to oversee it.
You are correct. It is not simple. We do not want laws that say how an ISP needs to route traffic. That would not be flexible enough to respond to changes in the internet or ISPs exploiting loopholes. What we need is an oversight body that can set standards based upon current needs and clarify the standards or slap ISPs down when they push beyond the boundary of net neutrality. While this is definitely not easy, it is very possible because we already had such a system in place. The FCC oversaw telecomms and enforced net neutrality (based upon common carrier laws). Then Comcast took them to court and the Supreme Court said that the internet was not covered under the common carrier laws. So the question is not whether it is possible to enforce net neutrality. It is whether our politicians will modify the laws to give the FCC back power that it was already exercising (and and exercising effectively) or if they are too much in the pocket of the ISPs.
I assume that this is what you are talking about. For one, it is a state decision from the Division of Insurance. I was not able to find what law empowers them to reject rate hikes, but am under the impression it had that power previously. Only now has it decided to exercise that power. From what I understand, the health care bill creates a Federal panel to oversee rate hikes, so in actuality this is a separate issue from the Health care bill, but it is closely enough related that you were justified in bringing it up.
The article says that they decided to decline any rate hikes over 7.7% (not 4%), and did not say that it was an automatic ruling. It seemed like they determined what the maximum was that was justifiable and then set that as the limit for everyone.
This seems to be in response to them switching around some insurance pools. So, my interpretation is that the insurance companies over-reacted to the new pools and set unjustifiable rates for a new (and therefore somewhat unknown) pool. So, this isn't them just arbitrarily denying regular rate hikes, this was a special circumstance. Also, please explain to me (or find a link that explains) how a rate hike of between 8% and 32% is justified. Are health care costs rising by a third a year now?
Have you actually researched the Health Care Bill to see what is in it, or do you just believe what the pundits tell you? The healthcare bill models its minimum plans on the High-Deductible Health Plans. They are, in my opinion (and I know since I do buy my healthcare on the open market so had to research these plans), the cheapest comprehensive health insurance plan. By that, I mean that it will not bankrupt you (plans that require you to co-pay 40% (or 20% or 10%) of the cost with no limit can still bankrupt you - 10% of a lot is still a lot). There are many plans out there that offer more perks than the HDHP and there is no reason that they cannot be sold in the future.
Also, rate hikes are subject to Federal overview but I did not see anywhere that said they were capped, and I do not recall seeing anything that limited their profits. Do you have a source you can cite? And how do you know all of the new customers they get will not be profitable. Sure, a lot of them are sick people that got screwed by the insurance company, but there are also a lot of people who aren't sick but cannot afford insurance or do not think it is worth it. One reason health insurance companies cited for rate hikes at the beginning of this year is that all the young, healthy people were dropping their coverage due to the recession, leaving all the sick people. Or, are they just lying again?
You gave me two choices for sustainable health care. Which one do YOU want? Letting people die on the side of the road or Government control? I have already advocated the public option. That is also what President Obama wanted. The only reason we are trying this crappy mix is because the Republicans would not allow that through. I do not believe that this bill is designed to destroy the insurance companies, but I am not positive it won't. But, there is only one way to find out. I do agree with you that we will probably eventually have to choose one way or the other, though. Hopefully, when people realize that this current bill is a less than optimal solution, the health insurance lobby will be weakened enough so that the American people can finally get the public option they wanted (70% at the beginning of the health care debate).
You would still have the advantage of a third party not stealing votes from another party. For example, if you assume that a person voting for the Green party would always vote Democrat if not given the option of voting Green, then if you have 49%R, 48%D, 3%G the Democrat should win because without the 3%G you would have 51%D. But, with our current election system, you only look at the 49%R as being the greatest so the Republican would win. But, with STV, the people voting Green could specify a Democrat as their second choice so that once the Green party is determined not to have enough votes, the votes transfer to their second choice. The same thing could happen if Republicans and Libertarians are running for the same office. This way, a third party vote would not be a useless vote, so we would be MORE LIKELY to elect a third party candidate.
Housing bubble was caused by false/easy credit. Full stop.
I do not deny that did contribute to the scope of the problem (if people couldn't borrow money, they wouldn't be able to gamble on property), but the sole reason? I would require some sort of legitimate citation to that effect to even consider that claim. The world is not as black and white as you would like it to be. There were multiple causes of the housing crisis, and some of those causes do not apply to healthcare.
The price of care is/has been rising faster than insurance costs. It will only get worse.
I agree. The cost has been rising way faster than inflation for years now. The system is broken, something needs to change. The Democrats proposed a single payer health care system (which a lot of countries in Europe utilize very successfully). The opposition said NO. So they compromised on a private market solution. And you still say no? What do you want to do instead? You just said the system is unsustainable, but you want to keep it? Stay the course!!!
Just as the easy credit caused a surplus supply of dollars used to purchase houses, the mandatory insurance will do the same for healthcare. This is simple supply and demand stuff.
I agree. The fact that everyone will have to buy insurance will cause a bubble in Insurance Company profits. They will have their revenues significantly increase (25 million people worth of premiums) while their outgoing costs will stay the same (the cost of the uninsured is already built into your premiums, hospitals take the loss when someone cannot pay and instead charge more for the people who can pay). So, it was a compromise. Republicans get what they want (rich people get richer) and the Democrats get what they want (poor people get to live longer). A win-win situation.
People will pay all they can bear. Insurance providing a larger chunk of this is irrelevant, because the hospital doesn't get the blame for the greater insurance premiums. So in the end the consumer will pay more in both places, and to add insult to injury, they'll go to prison if they opt out entirely.
You're the first person I have seen accuse hospital administrators as being self-centered fat-cats who are willing to sacrifice the healthcare of the common man to line his pockets. I thought that was reserved for insurance company CEOs. I don't buy it.
I have a proposal for you. I propose we let people opt out entirely. If they don't want health insurance, then they don't have to buy it. But, my tax money and insurance premiums CANNOT be used for their healthcare. If they get in a car wreck and cannot pay the ambulance to transport them to the hospital, then they don't get transported and will die on the side of the road. Until then, I do not support letting people choose to contribute nothing to the system while living off of its benifits.
I'm not the one arguing that people use it when it is free. That would be the 'wind up in the ER' crowd. Consequently, I think there may be someone else using your account, because you made such a statement only a few posts ago. You might want to change your password...
What are you talking about??? You know, the internet has these cool new things call hyperlinks. You should look into them. They can be very useful in helping illustrate a point.
Continuing my argument, should we get rid of private schools? Home schooling? Dropping out to get a job? Have it so if you do not take enough of the mandatory classes you go to prison? In this country we believe that a reasonable amount of liberty outweighs nearly every public need. Why not likewise in healthcare?
Last time I checked, my property taxes go to public schools, whether I want them to or not. If I try to withhold the proportion of my taxes t
1) They will be on welfare, because they gave up as you're predicting
or
2) They won't qualify for subsidies anyway
Either way, the system screws over a lot more people than it helps, and we the people pay for their healthcare AND for their insurance.
You seem not to understand how welfare works in the US. My source from google says it stops at 4 times the poverty level, which is the phase out level for the EITC which is the most commonly seen as "welfare". As for as medicaid, it depends on the state. For my state if you have a newborn and a family size of 4, you can make up to $44k and qualify, but the income level decreases as the age of the child increases and by age 6 the income limit is $22k (for a family size of 4). If you don't have children, then you have to qualify as disabled to get medicare (as far as I can tell). So, there is some overlap, but not all overlap.
What, by the way, do you think the fact that everyone has insurance will do to prices? Look back at the housing bubble with everyone's easy access to credit. Replace credit with insurance and home prices with billed charges. The have-nots are an integral part of any capitalist system. If you want to design a system with equity for every single person no matter what, do so. But take care to not blend such a system with capitalism, because it will be rife with corruption and abuse.
You show very little knowledge on what caused the housing bubble. Houses were sitting empty as investments, because for some reason people thought that housing prices would always go up. I have a house that I rent out. I can calculate how much I should sell it for based upon what I can get in rent (the rule of thumb is 1/15 of the price of the house per year). There were houses priced such that they could only get 1/30 to 1/60 of the sale price per year because they weren't buying based upon their worth now, but based upon what they were hoping they would be worth in the future. It was pure speculation and gambling (similar to how derivatives were treated on Wall Street) and when people realized that there was no actual value behind them, then the bubble burst.
But, how does this parallel Healthcare? There won't be a bubble. Sure, demand for Healthcare workers will increase so wages might rise as well, but that will be solved in time as the free market adjusts to it.
So long as the bread and circus tickets must still be purchased with money earned, rather than money willed into existence, there's hope that the system can work. In a world where it is a crime to not buy such things - where the able face prison for what the welfare crowd receives for free - you may or may not get the desired result. But either way, the hospital laughs all the way to the bank, and our tax rolls foot the bill.
I don't consider going to the hospital to be entertainment. I avoid it at pretty much all costs, even though I do have good insurance. You are arguing that people will use more if it is free, but I don't see it. People will use what they need (and mothers will probably use a little more than they need on their children, just to be safe) but I do not believe that people have any incentive to go to the hospital and have a blood test run every week.
Continuing your argument, should we get rid of public schools? Have it so that if you do not make enough money then your kids will not get educated? In this country, we believe that having an educated population is good for the country as a whole. Why is the same not true for having a healthy population?
Btw... the US already lags behind most of the rest of the 1st world in infant mortality and life expectancy. I'm sure proud to be an American.
Actually, my preference would be (I believe) to only change the state constitutions so that the members of the House of Representatives are elected using STV. Then we would not have all the problems that we do with Gerrymandering. But, you could hold all of the elections this way, even if you don't want to elect multiple candidates to one position, so you wouldn't have the third party problem (e.g. Ralph Nader in the 2000 election).
This system would allow you to actually vote your first choice (even if it were Libertarian, Green, ect. who are unlikely to win) and not have your vote be wasted.
What if they just got billed by the hospital, and made payments on that until it was gone? Or, better yet, set up a government program to pay the hospital and hold it out of their tax returns until it was repaid?
They will just declare bankruptcy (like they do now) and make the hospital pay for it. Or you could not allow medical bills to be wiped out by bankruptcy, but then you would just be telling them "All the money that you make well go to paying off your past debts." So not only would the country be stuck with their medical bills, but they would also probably go on welfare, and they wouldn't be working so they would not benefit the system by paying any taxes.
Besides, if we're giving them tax dollars to buy their insurance with, and/or if we're not penalizing them more than they would spend on insurance, what exactly ARE we accomplishing? Aside from dictating how other people live so we can feel better, that is?
The government is going to subsidize Health Insurance, not buy it for them. It is not an all or nothing deal. That is the problem with the system now. If you cannot afford the $5k per year to insure a family, then you just don't buy it. You put $0 into the pool of insurance money. With the new system, based upon your need, the government may subsidize all of the cost (medicaid), none of the cost (I will be in that category), or anywhere in between. So instead of people completely leeching off the system, they will contribute a portion and the government will contribute as well. Overall, less cost coming out of my pocket.
Apparently so. If you don't buy health insurance and then get into a car wreck (or have a heart attack, ect), the ambulance will still pick you up and the hospital will still treat you. They have to by law. Change the law so that we can leave people dying on the side of the road who don't have insurance (and I don't have to pay for their care) and then I will support your position. Until then, I want to FORCE these leechers who decide not to buy health insurance (or can't afford it) to contribute to the system (which they benefit from). That is what "Obamacare" does and why I support it.
Nope... no confusion at all. If you decide not to buy cable because it is too expensive (or you just don't want to) but then decide you really want to watch the Super Bowl and can't, then it is no skin off my back. But, if you decide not to buy health insurance and then get in a car wreck (or have a heart attack or whatnot) then you WILL get healthcare and I will have to pay for it. They are completely separate issues. If you can convince the American public to change the laws such that we leave car wreck victims lying by the side of the road, then I will support your position and say that healthcare is not a right. Until that point, I will say healthcare is a right and that government needs to step in and make sure that everyone contributes to the system (single payer health care system would be ideal, but I will see what the health care reform bill gives us. It is better than nothing)
I do want to point out that I do not like the health care reform bill. It is a monster of compromises and sacrifices. But, if Republicans had let a single payer system pass (like 70% of Americans wanted) then we would not have these problems. The status quo was not acceptable (my rates went up almost 20% January 2009 for a 25 year old with no health problems) and the ideal was unattainable (because of the filibuster). So we are stuck with the crappy compromise. Obama did his best to fullfill his campaign promise but he could not stand up to the party of "NO".
Actually I'm stating the opposite. I'm saying that there's a good chance that people will find it easier to duck the coverage (and many people do now) and pay the added taxes rather then go through the pain of getting health insurance.
Nice effort to duck my point. I was not talking about now. My point was in response to your assertion that pre-existing conditions is a strawman. That is why I linked to sources from during the healthcare debate, not after it.
And that's where I highly doubt it. If it doesn't happen initially, then it'll never happen. I don't see how an insurance company is going to start off paying more in medical costs then it takes in for premiums and turn around lower those premiums. In fact, I see the exact opposite happening, those premiums will have to go up to cover the added medical payout
It'll all come down to the payout of medical costs. If initially only the sick people sign up for the mandatory health care, you can kiss affordable health insurance out the window and you'll see insurance companies going broke left and right.
But they will also be getting more inflow from government subsidies for people who cannot afford insurance. And, the Republicans are already bought and paid for and they now have control of the House. I am sure they can push through a bailout for the insurance companies like they did for the banks.
It does depress me, though, how my fellow Americans are so unwilling to sacrifice anything to make this country better. I knew from the beginning that changing healthcare in a worthwhile way would require some time while the system adjusted. Things may even get uncomfortable. Which gives us people like you who argue to put off solving a problem that will only get worse so that you can have a few more years of comfort at the expense of the next generation. I say fix it now, and not leave it in the hands of my descendants.
Of course the insurance companies did not want this. They posted record profits in 2009, even while record numbers of people lost coverage. They were making money off of Americans getting screwed out of their health coverage. Why would they want that gravy train to stop? But, the bigger question is why do you want to give that gravy train back to them?
Slashdot Mirror
Leak sites rely on leakers. If they filtered the content for a political purpose, then I can almost guarantee that the leaker would leak the documents again and point out Wikileak's bias. Problem solved.
Just watch the news. I am positive that the person who originally leaked the documents will be angry if they are filtered to suit a particular bias. That person would definitely leak the documents to the media and point out where they had been filtered.
And would probably be pissed off enough about it to point it out to all the news organizations they could find.
Oh noes... after committing fraud and trashing the US economy the bankers might lose their jobs. Those poor bankers!!!
I say shoot the lot of them.
You are just making stuff up. Give me an example of where Wikileaks has refused to post information that has been leaked to it to take sides in a dispute. Or, show me where they have selectively leaked material to make it look worse than it is. (Though I like how you are so worried about Wikileaks doing it when all the major news agencies do it all the time) You are saying "well, Wikileaks could do bad things" without any proof that they have.
Wikileaks does not spy. Let me repeat that for you... Wikileaks does not spy. Any information they receive comes from someone who wants to leak it (they are the spy). All the information on Wikileaks would be available to find for people who know how to look. It would just be posted in the backalleys of the internet (Usenet, IRC, bittiorrent, anonymous message boards) which is how it would be leaked without wikileaks. All Wikileaks does is make it easier for everyone (mainly the general public) to see the information. Anyone who has an actual interest in the information (governments, organized terrorist groups) has probably already hired or trained people who can find the information without Wikileaks. So, all you are advocating is to keep the general population ignorant. While this may help prevent embarrassment for governments (from the public at large), it does not save lives or prevent other governments from finding the information.
My opinion on the matter is similar to my opinion on how software exploits should be handled. When it is discovered (or leaked) then the relevant authority should be notified (usually government for leaks, software companies for exploits) so that the appropriate steps can be taken (informants can be withdrawn and sheltered, software can be patched). After that, the information should be disseminated to the public at large so that the public cannot be exploited through their ignorance. Just as I do not want the only one to know about an exploit to be people taking advantage of it (crackers), I do not want the only ones to know about a leak to be enemies of my government. If the enemies know about it, then it should be released so that the public can be informed as well.
So, this is like if the government gave a monopoly to a company to control all of the surface streets (interstates controlled by someone else) and charge whatever they want and ban anyone from the roads that they want.
And your argument would be "The local monopoly is not the problem. If someone has a problem with it, they could always use a helicopter!".
You fail.
What line did Wikileaks cross? They did not leak the information. Someone else did (who had access). Do you think that the person who leaked them (who obviously wants the public to know about them) would have burned them all if Wikileaks had not published them? No. That person would have found other ways to publish them. You might have seen them hidden in the back alleys of the internet like Usenet and IRC and anonymous message boards. Other governments (who pay people to find information like this) would have gotten this information eventually. The only people who would be uninformed would be the public at large. You. Me. Well, you may want to stay ignorant, but I prefer not to. You want to blame anything bad that happens on Wikileaks, but the people who do the "bad" things would have gotten this information anyway. All you are advocating is to keep the unwashed masses ignorant and controllable.
Wikileaks exists to publish information in the public domain that would otherwise be suppressed. They are not spies. If they get information, then someone has already decided to release it to the public. They only facilitate getting it to the widespread public by posting it on the internet (instead of it spreading by personal networks through email, irc, bittorrent, ect). The governments are not learning anything that they would not have learned anyway (their intelligence services would have found it eventually). It is the public at large which benefits from Wikileaks, because they get information they would not have otherwise had.
That being the case, I do not want Wikileaks trying to keep me ignorant. They should do their best not to help spread information that can get people killed (naming informants and the like), but everything else should be fair game. I want them to have no agenda besides exposing leaked information so that the average person can find it. I don't care who it embarrasses. It is not their job to protect someone else's secrets when that person has already failed to do the same.
In the US? Of course it does. We aren't constrained by those annoying little "facts".
Oh... so if everyone else is doing it, then it is OK. If corruption is rampant then don't try to fix it. I'm sure that will make the world a better place...
People like you are the democracy ends up just as corrupt as any other form of government. There is no point in giving "the people" power. The majority is just going to squander it anyway.
You propose a terrible solution. There should be prioritization of data. A DNS lookup request should never be dropped. It is a minuscule amount of data but is a major bottleneck if it cannot be completed. If I am surfing the internet while I am downloading something on bittorrent, I would be fine with the ISP dropping 100 torrent packets per DNS request I make, as long as they never drop my DNS requests. Similar situation for VOIP. If I am on the phone with someone, I want my ISP to prioritize the VOIP over my bittorrent.
I have QoS rules set in my router at home. And, I can be maxing out my connection downloading a file while carrying on a VOIP call and surfing the internet. The priority I have is DNS->VOIP->HTTP->Bittorrent. I am using my connection efficiently (using my full bandwidth) while still having the quality of service that I want because priority is given to the traffic that needs it. (My calls are high quality and my web surfing is responsive)
I do remember back in the mid-90s when I would pause downloading big files while I surfed the internet or web pages would load very slowly. That is not the case now, and I do not want to go back to it.
This and net neutrality are not mutually exclusive. Net Neutrality is about not having premium users, not about not prioritizing traffic. My DNS request should be prioritized the same as anyone else's. The FCC was doing this and doing a good job at it. They enforced net neutrality based upon the common carrier laws. Then, Comcast took them to court and the Supreme Court ruled that the internet is not covered under the common carrier law. So, what needs to be done is for Congress to amend the common carrier law to make it cover the internet or (probably better) make a new law to specify what net neutrality is and give the FCC the authority to oversee it.
You are correct. It is not simple. We do not want laws that say how an ISP needs to route traffic. That would not be flexible enough to respond to changes in the internet or ISPs exploiting loopholes. What we need is an oversight body that can set standards based upon current needs and clarify the standards or slap ISPs down when they push beyond the boundary of net neutrality. While this is definitely not easy, it is very possible because we already had such a system in place. The FCC oversaw telecomms and enforced net neutrality (based upon common carrier laws). Then Comcast took them to court and the Supreme Court said that the internet was not covered under the common carrier laws. So the question is not whether it is possible to enforce net neutrality. It is whether our politicians will modify the laws to give the FCC back power that it was already exercising (and and exercising effectively) or if they are too much in the pocket of the ISPs.
I assume that this is what you are talking about. For one, it is a state decision from the Division of Insurance. I was not able to find what law empowers them to reject rate hikes, but am under the impression it had that power previously. Only now has it decided to exercise that power. From what I understand, the health care bill creates a Federal panel to oversee rate hikes, so in actuality this is a separate issue from the Health care bill, but it is closely enough related that you were justified in bringing it up.
The article says that they decided to decline any rate hikes over 7.7% (not 4%), and did not say that it was an automatic ruling. It seemed like they determined what the maximum was that was justifiable and then set that as the limit for everyone.
This seems to be in response to them switching around some insurance pools. So, my interpretation is that the insurance companies over-reacted to the new pools and set unjustifiable rates for a new (and therefore somewhat unknown) pool. So, this isn't them just arbitrarily denying regular rate hikes, this was a special circumstance. Also, please explain to me (or find a link that explains) how a rate hike of between 8% and 32% is justified. Are health care costs rising by a third a year now?
Have you actually researched the Health Care Bill to see what is in it, or do you just believe what the pundits tell you? The healthcare bill models its minimum plans on the High-Deductible Health Plans. They are, in my opinion (and I know since I do buy my healthcare on the open market so had to research these plans), the cheapest comprehensive health insurance plan. By that, I mean that it will not bankrupt you (plans that require you to co-pay 40% (or 20% or 10%) of the cost with no limit can still bankrupt you - 10% of a lot is still a lot). There are many plans out there that offer more perks than the HDHP and there is no reason that they cannot be sold in the future.
Also, rate hikes are subject to Federal overview but I did not see anywhere that said they were capped, and I do not recall seeing anything that limited their profits. Do you have a source you can cite? And how do you know all of the new customers they get will not be profitable. Sure, a lot of them are sick people that got screwed by the insurance company, but there are also a lot of people who aren't sick but cannot afford insurance or do not think it is worth it. One reason health insurance companies cited for rate hikes at the beginning of this year is that all the young, healthy people were dropping their coverage due to the recession, leaving all the sick people. Or, are they just lying again?
You gave me two choices for sustainable health care. Which one do YOU want? Letting people die on the side of the road or Government control? I have already advocated the public option. That is also what President Obama wanted. The only reason we are trying this crappy mix is because the Republicans would not allow that through. I do not believe that this bill is designed to destroy the insurance companies, but I am not positive it won't. But, there is only one way to find out. I do agree with you that we will probably eventually have to choose one way or the other, though. Hopefully, when people realize that this current bill is a less than optimal solution, the health insurance lobby will be weakened enough so that the American people can finally get the public option they wanted (70% at the beginning of the health care debate).
You would still have the advantage of a third party not stealing votes from another party. For example, if you assume that a person voting for the Green party would always vote Democrat if not given the option of voting Green, then if you have 49%R, 48%D, 3%G the Democrat should win because without the 3%G you would have 51%D. But, with our current election system, you only look at the 49%R as being the greatest so the Republican would win. But, with STV, the people voting Green could specify a Democrat as their second choice so that once the Green party is determined not to have enough votes, the votes transfer to their second choice. The same thing could happen if Republicans and Libertarians are running for the same office. This way, a third party vote would not be a useless vote, so we would be MORE LIKELY to elect a third party candidate.
Housing bubble was caused by false/easy credit. Full stop.
I do not deny that did contribute to the scope of the problem (if people couldn't borrow money, they wouldn't be able to gamble on property), but the sole reason? I would require some sort of legitimate citation to that effect to even consider that claim. The world is not as black and white as you would like it to be. There were multiple causes of the housing crisis, and some of those causes do not apply to healthcare.
The price of care is/has been rising faster than insurance costs. It will only get worse.
I agree. The cost has been rising way faster than inflation for years now. The system is broken, something needs to change. The Democrats proposed a single payer health care system (which a lot of countries in Europe utilize very successfully). The opposition said NO. So they compromised on a private market solution. And you still say no? What do you want to do instead? You just said the system is unsustainable, but you want to keep it? Stay the course!!!
Just as the easy credit caused a surplus supply of dollars used to purchase houses, the mandatory insurance will do the same for healthcare. This is simple supply and demand stuff.
I agree. The fact that everyone will have to buy insurance will cause a bubble in Insurance Company profits. They will have their revenues significantly increase (25 million people worth of premiums) while their outgoing costs will stay the same (the cost of the uninsured is already built into your premiums, hospitals take the loss when someone cannot pay and instead charge more for the people who can pay). So, it was a compromise. Republicans get what they want (rich people get richer) and the Democrats get what they want (poor people get to live longer). A win-win situation.
People will pay all they can bear. Insurance providing a larger chunk of this is irrelevant, because the hospital doesn't get the blame for the greater insurance premiums. So in the end the consumer will pay more in both places, and to add insult to injury, they'll go to prison if they opt out entirely.
You're the first person I have seen accuse hospital administrators as being self-centered fat-cats who are willing to sacrifice the healthcare of the common man to line his pockets. I thought that was reserved for insurance company CEOs. I don't buy it.
I have a proposal for you. I propose we let people opt out entirely. If they don't want health insurance, then they don't have to buy it. But, my tax money and insurance premiums CANNOT be used for their healthcare. If they get in a car wreck and cannot pay the ambulance to transport them to the hospital, then they don't get transported and will die on the side of the road. Until then, I do not support letting people choose to contribute nothing to the system while living off of its benifits.
I'm not the one arguing that people use it when it is free. That would be the 'wind up in the ER' crowd. Consequently, I think there may be someone else using your account, because you made such a statement only a few posts ago. You might want to change your password...
What are you talking about??? You know, the internet has these cool new things call hyperlinks. You should look into them. They can be very useful in helping illustrate a point.
Continuing my argument, should we get rid of private schools? Home schooling? Dropping out to get a job? Have it so if you do not take enough of the mandatory classes you go to prison? In this country we believe that a reasonable amount of liberty outweighs nearly every public need. Why not likewise in healthcare?
Last time I checked, my property taxes go to public schools, whether I want them to or not. If I try to withhold the proportion of my taxes t
Either:
1) They will be on welfare, because they gave up as you're predicting or 2) They won't qualify for subsidies anyway
Either way, the system screws over a lot more people than it helps, and we the people pay for their healthcare AND for their insurance.
You seem not to understand how welfare works in the US. My source from google says it stops at 4 times the poverty level, which is the phase out level for the EITC which is the most commonly seen as "welfare". As for as medicaid, it depends on the state. For my state if you have a newborn and a family size of 4, you can make up to $44k and qualify, but the income level decreases as the age of the child increases and by age 6 the income limit is $22k (for a family size of 4). If you don't have children, then you have to qualify as disabled to get medicare (as far as I can tell). So, there is some overlap, but not all overlap.
What, by the way, do you think the fact that everyone has insurance will do to prices? Look back at the housing bubble with everyone's easy access to credit. Replace credit with insurance and home prices with billed charges. The have-nots are an integral part of any capitalist system. If you want to design a system with equity for every single person no matter what, do so. But take care to not blend such a system with capitalism, because it will be rife with corruption and abuse.
You show very little knowledge on what caused the housing bubble. Houses were sitting empty as investments, because for some reason people thought that housing prices would always go up. I have a house that I rent out. I can calculate how much I should sell it for based upon what I can get in rent (the rule of thumb is 1/15 of the price of the house per year). There were houses priced such that they could only get 1/30 to 1/60 of the sale price per year because they weren't buying based upon their worth now, but based upon what they were hoping they would be worth in the future. It was pure speculation and gambling (similar to how derivatives were treated on Wall Street) and when people realized that there was no actual value behind them, then the bubble burst.
But, how does this parallel Healthcare? There won't be a bubble. Sure, demand for Healthcare workers will increase so wages might rise as well, but that will be solved in time as the free market adjusts to it.
So long as the bread and circus tickets must still be purchased with money earned, rather than money willed into existence, there's hope that the system can work. In a world where it is a crime to not buy such things - where the able face prison for what the welfare crowd receives for free - you may or may not get the desired result. But either way, the hospital laughs all the way to the bank, and our tax rolls foot the bill.
I don't consider going to the hospital to be entertainment. I avoid it at pretty much all costs, even though I do have good insurance. You are arguing that people will use more if it is free, but I don't see it. People will use what they need (and mothers will probably use a little more than they need on their children, just to be safe) but I do not believe that people have any incentive to go to the hospital and have a blood test run every week.
Continuing your argument, should we get rid of public schools? Have it so that if you do not make enough money then your kids will not get educated? In this country, we believe that having an educated population is good for the country as a whole. Why is the same not true for having a healthy population?
Btw... the US already lags behind most of the rest of the 1st world in infant mortality and life expectancy. I'm sure proud to be an American.
This system would allow you to actually vote your first choice (even if it were Libertarian, Green, ect. who are unlikely to win) and not have your vote be wasted.
What if they just got billed by the hospital, and made payments on that until it was gone? Or, better yet, set up a government program to pay the hospital and hold it out of their tax returns until it was repaid?
They will just declare bankruptcy (like they do now) and make the hospital pay for it. Or you could not allow medical bills to be wiped out by bankruptcy, but then you would just be telling them "All the money that you make well go to paying off your past debts." So not only would the country be stuck with their medical bills, but they would also probably go on welfare, and they wouldn't be working so they would not benefit the system by paying any taxes.
Besides, if we're giving them tax dollars to buy their insurance with, and/or if we're not penalizing them more than they would spend on insurance, what exactly ARE we accomplishing? Aside from dictating how other people live so we can feel better, that is?
The government is going to subsidize Health Insurance, not buy it for them. It is not an all or nothing deal. That is the problem with the system now. If you cannot afford the $5k per year to insure a family, then you just don't buy it. You put $0 into the pool of insurance money. With the new system, based upon your need, the government may subsidize all of the cost (medicaid), none of the cost (I will be in that category), or anywhere in between. So instead of people completely leeching off the system, they will contribute a portion and the government will contribute as well. Overall, less cost coming out of my pocket.
Apparently so. If you don't buy health insurance and then get into a car wreck (or have a heart attack, ect), the ambulance will still pick you up and the hospital will still treat you. They have to by law. Change the law so that we can leave people dying on the side of the road who don't have insurance (and I don't have to pay for their care) and then I will support your position. Until then, I want to FORCE these leechers who decide not to buy health insurance (or can't afford it) to contribute to the system (which they benefit from). That is what "Obamacare" does and why I support it.
Nope... no confusion at all. If you decide not to buy cable because it is too expensive (or you just don't want to) but then decide you really want to watch the Super Bowl and can't, then it is no skin off my back. But, if you decide not to buy health insurance and then get in a car wreck (or have a heart attack or whatnot) then you WILL get healthcare and I will have to pay for it. They are completely separate issues. If you can convince the American public to change the laws such that we leave car wreck victims lying by the side of the road, then I will support your position and say that healthcare is not a right. Until that point, I will say healthcare is a right and that government needs to step in and make sure that everyone contributes to the system (single payer health care system would be ideal, but I will see what the health care reform bill gives us. It is better than nothing)
I do want to point out that I do not like the health care reform bill. It is a monster of compromises and sacrifices. But, if Republicans had let a single payer system pass (like 70% of Americans wanted) then we would not have these problems. The status quo was not acceptable (my rates went up almost 20% January 2009 for a 25 year old with no health problems) and the ideal was unattainable (because of the filibuster). So we are stuck with the crappy compromise. Obama did his best to fullfill his campaign promise but he could not stand up to the party of "NO".
Ahhh... but only if the parent's aren't covered. My point still stands.
But, thank you for the interesting article. Bureaucracy at its finest.
Actually I'm stating the opposite. I'm saying that there's a good chance that people will find it easier to duck the coverage (and many people do now) and pay the added taxes rather then go through the pain of getting health insurance.
Nice effort to duck my point. I was not talking about now. My point was in response to your assertion that pre-existing conditions is a strawman. That is why I linked to sources from during the healthcare debate, not after it.
And that's where I highly doubt it. If it doesn't happen initially, then it'll never happen. I don't see how an insurance company is going to start off paying more in medical costs then it takes in for premiums and turn around lower those premiums. In fact, I see the exact opposite happening, those premiums will have to go up to cover the added medical payout
It'll all come down to the payout of medical costs. If initially only the sick people sign up for the mandatory health care, you can kiss affordable health insurance out the window and you'll see insurance companies going broke left and right.
But they will also be getting more inflow from government subsidies for people who cannot afford insurance. And, the Republicans are already bought and paid for and they now have control of the House. I am sure they can push through a bailout for the insurance companies like they did for the banks.
It does depress me, though, how my fellow Americans are so unwilling to sacrifice anything to make this country better. I knew from the beginning that changing healthcare in a worthwhile way would require some time while the system adjusted. Things may even get uncomfortable. Which gives us people like you who argue to put off solving a problem that will only get worse so that you can have a few more years of comfort at the expense of the next generation. I say fix it now, and not leave it in the hands of my descendants.
Of course the insurance companies did not want this. They posted record profits in 2009, even while record numbers of people lost coverage. They were making money off of Americans getting screwed out of their health coverage. Why would they want that gravy train to stop? But, the bigger question is why do you want to give that gravy train back to them?