Funny how Monsanto isn't required to definitively prove their crap is safe, but everyone else is required to definitely prove that it isn't.
That's because it is reasonable to assume that it is safe based on what we know about biology. Furthermore, there are no real-world indications that it is not. At this point, if you want to claim it's unsafe, you better have some strong data to back it up.
he's basically just demonstrated that Food and Chemical Toxicology isn't interested in objective science.
According to objective science, every widely used organism produced by genetic manipulation is safe to consume.
I don't follow you. First of all, privatizing profits while publicly insuring profits isn't socialism (socialism has its own problem). Second, copyright is primarily a tool by which corporations monopolize intellectual works in near perpetuity; that's essentially the same problem as the first one.
Salinger should have gotten 15-30 years of copyright, and afterwards his works should have fallen into the public domain and become an integral part of our culture. Instead, you still can't even get his works in e-book format because his "estate" has a stick up their ass. Yes, those people deserve to be disrespected.
I'd still live [in the US], if there weren't so many evil people like yourself polluting it until it's now one of the worst nations, down from one of the best. I'll go back, if the conditions improve, but with so many people like you, I don't hold high hopes.
Be specific: when was the US "one of the best" nations according to you? Then we can look at what conditions prevailed back then in the US.
And come clean on where you live now so that we can actually examine what makes your expat refuge work so well (if it indeed does).
I'm assuming you're referring to gold convertability. It's nonsense: The reason gold is valuable is that societieshave historically used it as currency.
No, I'm not referring to "gold convertibility" in the US dollar sense. I'm referring to the fact that the way bank notes started historically was that they were deposit slips for actual valuable goods in private banks (which at the time happened to be gold and silver, but could be anything).
The point is that paper money appeared and got its value completely without government intervention, based on privately managed commodities, storage services, security, and certification. And while modern paper money gets its value from a legal construct, that doesn't keep the old kind of paper money from working as well as it did back then.
I prefer to look at the best, and learn. Not go back in my shell and try to replicate times past that weren't even that good (
OK, so we're getting somewhere. You admit that the US used to prosper under smaller federal government and with a more free market approach. But for some unspecified reason, you think that now, everything has changed and the US would do better if it moved strongly in the direction of a social welfare state. And as evidence, you cite some unnamed wonderful country that you chose to live in as an expat, and you think that if the US only adopted the same progressive policies as that country, we'd do as well. Does that about sum up your argument?
I'm living under a system right now that's better than what you describe. Reality trumps ideology. It's not perfect. But it's certainly better than you describe, and way better than the US system.
So if you lived in Saudi Arabia instead of New Zealand or wherever, you'd advocate that we'd turn into an absolute monarchy? If you lived in Liechtenstein or Monaco, you'd advocate a constitutional monarchy and low taxes? Countries succeed for many reasons, and your choice of where to be an expat isn't random either, so it's no wonder that you manage to find yourself a country that is doing well right now and whose politics you like; that's not evidence of anything.
Furthermore, the adoption of welfare state policies isn't random either, and you got the causation backwards: countries aren't doing well because they adopt these policies, rather they adopt these policies because they are doing well.
Yet you are so inarticulate, you can't identify individual points of contention
I can't "identify individual points of contention" because the main evidence you cite is some mythical, supposedly perfect country where you live but that you refuse to name and that you can fabricate whatever facts you want about.
"Economist Edward Hadas writes in the NYT that developers of bitcoin are trying to show that money can be successfully privatized but money that is not issued by governments is always doomed to failure because money is inevitably a tool of the state.
Centuries of history tell us differently, because throughout much of history, "money" was either stuff that was intrinsically valuable to people, or it was slips of paper referring to actual, valuable stuff stashed away in private vaults. In fact, it is governments that usually deprive money of value for the purpose of financing wars and welfare.
Besides, if bitcoin ever really started to take off, governments would either ban it or take over the system says Hadas
Mostly what that says is that Hadas already views governments as entities separate from the people and has given up on democracy and reason. I still think that in the long term, the people tend to make good decisions and vote in representatives that do the right thing.
Besides, people can come up with new ways of doing things faster than governments can catch up with laws and enforcement to try to stop them. And when governments get too pushy, the people just ignore them, as they do when it comes to drugs, and taxes in much of the world.
Unfortunately, the corporate world has become very much like the political arena. Honesty is no longer treasured. No matter if it's Helen Hill or Edward Snowden, as long as you blew the whistle on wrongdoings of others, you will get punished.
You list two cases of whistle blowing, one in academia and the other in government. What does that have to do with "the corporate world"?
When companies develop products, they try to keep their employees from cheating on any results that matter to their bottom line, because using bad data would just cause their products to work less well.
Cheating and fabrication of data happen when the data is used to satisfy expert evaluators or comply with arbitrary regulations.
I'm an American. I lived 35+ years in the US, and about 5 out
Perhaps you should have stated that earlier in the discussion; of course, as a US citizen, you are entitled to participate in discussions on US politics. I have lived abroad longer and more often than you, and I have family all across Europe. For all the failings that the US has, it's still better than any other place I've ever found, that's why I've always returned. I used to be politically inactive before I went abroad, but after having seen the world, I know one thing for sure: I don't want the US to turn into a European-style democracy.
I'd still live there, if there weren't so many evil people like yourself polluting it until it's now one of the worst nations, down from one of the best.
That statement makes no sense. What I advocate is taking the US back a few decades, in terms of federal expenditures and federal regulations. If you think the US used to be a nice place, you should wholeheartedly agree. Instead, you advocate single payer health systems and other things that the US never had while it was prospering.
The US has moved strongly in the direction people like you have advocated since the 1960's. You simply pretend that the negative consequences, like corruption, rent seeking, and restrictions on liberty, aren't inextricably linked to these policies when they, in fact, are. It is "evil people like yourself" who advocated and fought for the policies that have degraded life in the US, and now that those policies are failing, you are running away. You simply don't understand that, nice as single payer health care and all those other progressive policies sound on paper, they never work in the real world when implemented by real people.
I think your erroneous beliefs about single payer health care and other US political issues are cognitive dissonance, both related to the train wreck people like you created in US politics, and related to living abroad.
You were talking about medicinal monopoly being a bad thing. I'm stating the US had it before ACA, and I can't find any complaints by you about that monopoly being a problem before.
There are plenty of things wrong with the US medical system, but it's not, and has never been, a "monopoly".
someone told me I had to be in one of two countries, and he was right. So you might be able to deduce it. If you were smarter than a brick.
Yes, that was me (different nick), but I don't remember; somehow, your whereabouts in the world are not on the top of my list of things to remember.
Of course, the real reason you don't want to reveal it is because it would probably turn out that pretty much everything you say about your country is wrong; after all, you don't even know the difference between a monopoly and a regulated market, or medical licensing and a public health system. Your statement about taxes, for example, is almost certainly wrong; you probably have tax burden and income tax confused.
The reason I object to your misrepresentations is because it's a common and erroneous argument in US politics about how well progressive politics supposedly works abroad. I don't want the US to turn into Canada, Switzerland, or New Zealand.
The real question is why, if your country is so wonderful and perfect, you are so obsessed with US internal politics and persist on telling Americans what they should do. I mean, nobody here is discussing privatizing Canada's, the UK's, New Zealand, or Australia's health care system, and if we bothered to discuss that, I wouldn't bother chiming in because I frankly don't give a f*ck. So what's your problem? Why do you persist on telling Americans that they should be like you? Envy? Inferiority complex? A nagging suspicion that your perfect little life in progressive paradise is a mirage after all?
So what you're saying is "If the constitution says one thing and policy says something else, go with policy."?
Not at all. I'm saying that it is logically consistent under the US Constitution to apply Fourth Amendment protections only to American citizens and/or only within the US.
You didn't refer to any language in the Constitution. You merely re-asserted current government policy positions.
There is no language either way, so we actually have to analyze the situation. Just because you think that absent specific language, it applies to everybody everywhere doesn't make it so.
As for current government policy decisions, they are usually based on extensive legal and constitutional analysis, so that actually strengthens my argument.
Name a single payer system from a major country that doesn't allow private treatment. You have options with single payer
You gave the example of people dying because their private insurance denies coverage and suggested that single payer improves that situation. That's obviously nonsense. The same kind of people who have to worry about denials by private insurance companies would have much more limited legal recourse or ability to recover damages under a single payer system. And since a single payer system largely destroys a mass market in private health care, they have far fewer options for pay-for-service even if they mortgage their home to pay for it.
And there have been single payer systems that do not give the option of private health care at all; in order to be a licensed, practicing physician, you need to be part of the public system. Some of my relatives had the misfortune to live with such systems. And in many public health care systems, private practice is restricted or burdened in some way as governments try to deal with problems that physicians leave the public system and voters get pissed off at the poor service they get in the public system relative to private health care.
Why are you lying about them?
I'm not lying, your reasoning is just beyond stupid, and you obviously haven't had to personally suffer under miserable single payer systems.
The way it works now, they call the hospital and explain that nobody will pay for your mother's care. The hospital evicts the vagrant you call Mom
And the way it works in a single payer system is that the hospital tells you that treatment will be stopped, period. Unlike a private system, where you can sue for damages, recover money, and have many other options, in a single payer system you have no recourse and no options. That's better because...?
By the cost of the organization compared to the cost of the service, should one buy the identical (or closest analog) service in the Free Market (or closest available market).
I.e., you're pulling this "fact" out of your ass.
How are they addressed in the UK? Australia? Canada? Why are you unable to use Google to answer the most basic of questions?
If you actually read more than one sentence at a time, you'd see that I gave you the answer to my rhetorical question: your options for having malpractice and denial of coverage addressed are much worse in single payer systems than in almost any other system.
Where did he say anything about the government exactly?
Here:
How the fuck does a Christian based nation allow a CEO to make enough money each year to buy a jumbo jet while the employees
Switzerland was considering government restrictions on CEO pay and rejected them. He was proposing that any "Christian nation" ought to adopt such restrictions because not doing so would be inconsistent with Christianity. I pointed out that his reasoning was flawed.
Where does it say "citizens"? Where does it say "only within the bounds of the continental US?"
US laws and the US Constitution only apply within the US. In other countries, other laws apply. There is nothing in the US Constitution that prohibits us from violating the laws of other countries.
Whether it applies to non-citizens visiting the US is a policy decision; it depends on the conditions under which non-citizens enter. The US could simply say to non-citizens "as condition of visiting the US, you agree to be exempted from Fourth Amendment Protections". In effect, that's what we already do when we give out visas.
US Capitalism is worse. At least with pure anarchy, if Blue Cross kills your mother, you can look up the CEO, go to his house, and kill him.
And that's bringing back my mother... how? Besides, how do you think Blue Cross is going to "kill my mother"?
Single payer is cheaper and better than we had before or have now. The politicians screwed it up.
Just about anything is better than what we have now, because ACA made a bad situation worse. But single payer is still a lousy and inefficient system. Few countries have it, and those that do usually still have a separate private insurance market because it's inadequate. Have you ever lived under a single payer system? I have, and it sucks.
And how are you going to have your grievances addressed in a payer system? You'll be even less able to sue doctors or hospitals in such a system, because the first thing that's going to happen for cost control is to sharply limit payouts for malpractice. In fact, you won't even get anybody telling you that malpractice occurred. And most of the well-off will either go to private doctors or go abroad for their medical needs anyway.
Sure, what they collect and pay out is stupid (because it's politicized), but the actual running of the departments is remarkably more efficient than the private sector.
And how do you determine "efficiency" for an organization that doesn't actually produce anything and where users are compelled under penalty of law to participate?
Wow, are you perhaps coming around to a free market position on health care by realizing that the kind of highly politicized micromanagement that the ACA has moved us to isn't working?
They very much have something to do with it: if you create financial incentives for hospitals and doctors to make people sick and keep them in the hospital, then that's what they are going to do.
I think the parent was just trying to point out the hypocrisy of the people who claim they were Christians while violating their religion's tenets. I thought you were a religious person arguing with that, so I joined in.
Yes, and I pointed out that there is no hypocrisy, because the poster misrepresented government based redistribution as charity, and misunderstood capitalism as "every man for himself".
Both Christians conservatives and libertarians view progressive policies as both ineffective and amoral, or possibly even harmful and immoral. That's why there is no contradiction or hypocrisy.
The problem is when special interests poison the curricula with their own agenda not that there is a curricula. Your way invites abuse.
"Special interests" are a phenomenon that only exists with respect to government. Therefore, the only way special interests can poison curricula is if government mandates curricula. It is your way of government mandated curricula that "invites abuse" by "special interests".
It seems that you hate religion. But saying religion has no place in social studies like history is as narrow-minded as saying religion should be taught in science class.
Why do you keep putting words in my mouth? I never said that "religion has no place in social studies". Stop lying.
Without basic standards, the education of children will fail.
And the evidence for that statement is... non-existent. In fact, centuries of experience around the world show that parents are perfectly capable of making good educational decisions for their kids. Public school systems are not a way of ensuring good education, they are a means of political indoctrination and ensuring conformity. Many public school systems in the world have that as an explicitly stated goal.
You seem to be confusing "legal" and "legitimate". It's legal, but not necessarily considered legitimate. In particular, many ISPs seem to interfere with torrent traffic. The more people use it for non-copyright-infringing purposes, the more pressure there is on ISPs to back off on their interference.
Now after the ACA, what happens? The elderly are covered by a combination of Medicare and Medicaid (once they're destitute) so that doctors and hospitals get paid much, much more to prolong their lives.
The difference between pre-ACA and post-ACA days is that incentives for the medical system to increase revenue by creating sick people and having people suffer in hospitals long term has now been extended to even more of the population.
Boy, what a gigantic shift!! But good job rolling out the talking points.
As you observe, it's not a "gigantic shift", it is an expansion of a broken system to even more people; what ACA really should have done is moved in the opposite direction.
Voters are given the erroneous impression that medicine can miraculously save them and want to be covered for anything, so they vote in politicians that mandate "adequate care"; when costs spiral out of control, they need to be socialized and distributed to those who don't subscribe to such foolishness and would choose cheaper plans if they could; and doctors, hospitals, and drug companies love it because it increases their revenues. You'd think that insurance companies would be against it, but they don't care anymore, since with ACA, people have no alternative but to pay whatever rates insurance companies demand or violate the law.
Unless you arrange for dying far from hospitals and emergency rooms, you can now look forward to spending months as a living corpse generating revenue for hospitals in the future. Welcome to the financially bright new future of universal health care in the US.
Slashdot Mirror
That's because it is reasonable to assume that it is safe based on what we know about biology. Furthermore, there are no real-world indications that it is not. At this point, if you want to claim it's unsafe, you better have some strong data to back it up.
According to objective science, every widely used organism produced by genetic manipulation is safe to consume.
I don't follow you. First of all, privatizing profits while publicly insuring profits isn't socialism (socialism has its own problem). Second, copyright is primarily a tool by which corporations monopolize intellectual works in near perpetuity; that's essentially the same problem as the first one.
Salinger should have gotten 15-30 years of copyright, and afterwards his works should have fallen into the public domain and become an integral part of our culture. Instead, you still can't even get his works in e-book format because his "estate" has a stick up their ass. Yes, those people deserve to be disrespected.
I didn't say I wanted "laissez faire". You said:
Be specific: when was the US "one of the best" nations according to you? Then we can look at what conditions prevailed back then in the US.
And come clean on where you live now so that we can actually examine what makes your expat refuge work so well (if it indeed does).
No, I'm not referring to "gold convertibility" in the US dollar sense. I'm referring to the fact that the way bank notes started historically was that they were deposit slips for actual valuable goods in private banks (which at the time happened to be gold and silver, but could be anything).
The point is that paper money appeared and got its value completely without government intervention, based on privately managed commodities, storage services, security, and certification. And while modern paper money gets its value from a legal construct, that doesn't keep the old kind of paper money from working as well as it did back then.
OK, so we're getting somewhere. You admit that the US used to prosper under smaller federal government and with a more free market approach. But for some unspecified reason, you think that now, everything has changed and the US would do better if it moved strongly in the direction of a social welfare state. And as evidence, you cite some unnamed wonderful country that you chose to live in as an expat, and you think that if the US only adopted the same progressive policies as that country, we'd do as well. Does that about sum up your argument?
So if you lived in Saudi Arabia instead of New Zealand or wherever, you'd advocate that we'd turn into an absolute monarchy? If you lived in Liechtenstein or Monaco, you'd advocate a constitutional monarchy and low taxes? Countries succeed for many reasons, and your choice of where to be an expat isn't random either, so it's no wonder that you manage to find yourself a country that is doing well right now and whose politics you like; that's not evidence of anything.
Furthermore, the adoption of welfare state policies isn't random either, and you got the causation backwards: countries aren't doing well because they adopt these policies, rather they adopt these policies because they are doing well.
I can't "identify individual points of contention" because the main evidence you cite is some mythical, supposedly perfect country where you live but that you refuse to name and that you can fabricate whatever facts you want about.
Centuries of history tell us differently, because throughout much of history, "money" was either stuff that was intrinsically valuable to people, or it was slips of paper referring to actual, valuable stuff stashed away in private vaults. In fact, it is governments that usually deprive money of value for the purpose of financing wars and welfare.
Mostly what that says is that Hadas already views governments as entities separate from the people and has given up on democracy and reason. I still think that in the long term, the people tend to make good decisions and vote in representatives that do the right thing.
Besides, people can come up with new ways of doing things faster than governments can catch up with laws and enforcement to try to stop them. And when governments get too pushy, the people just ignore them, as they do when it comes to drugs, and taxes in much of the world.
You list two cases of whistle blowing, one in academia and the other in government. What does that have to do with "the corporate world"?
When companies develop products, they try to keep their employees from cheating on any results that matter to their bottom line, because using bad data would just cause their products to work less well.
Cheating and fabrication of data happen when the data is used to satisfy expert evaluators or comply with arbitrary regulations.
Perhaps you should have stated that earlier in the discussion; of course, as a US citizen, you are entitled to participate in discussions on US politics. I have lived abroad longer and more often than you, and I have family all across Europe. For all the failings that the US has, it's still better than any other place I've ever found, that's why I've always returned. I used to be politically inactive before I went abroad, but after having seen the world, I know one thing for sure: I don't want the US to turn into a European-style democracy.
That statement makes no sense. What I advocate is taking the US back a few decades, in terms of federal expenditures and federal regulations. If you think the US used to be a nice place, you should wholeheartedly agree. Instead, you advocate single payer health systems and other things that the US never had while it was prospering.
The US has moved strongly in the direction people like you have advocated since the 1960's. You simply pretend that the negative consequences, like corruption, rent seeking, and restrictions on liberty, aren't inextricably linked to these policies when they, in fact, are. It is "evil people like yourself" who advocated and fought for the policies that have degraded life in the US, and now that those policies are failing, you are running away. You simply don't understand that, nice as single payer health care and all those other progressive policies sound on paper, they never work in the real world when implemented by real people.
I think your erroneous beliefs about single payer health care and other US political issues are cognitive dissonance, both related to the train wreck people like you created in US politics, and related to living abroad.
There are plenty of things wrong with the US medical system, but it's not, and has never been, a "monopoly".
Yes, that was me (different nick), but I don't remember; somehow, your whereabouts in the world are not on the top of my list of things to remember.
Of course, the real reason you don't want to reveal it is because it would probably turn out that pretty much everything you say about your country is wrong; after all, you don't even know the difference between a monopoly and a regulated market, or medical licensing and a public health system. Your statement about taxes, for example, is almost certainly wrong; you probably have tax burden and income tax confused.
The reason I object to your misrepresentations is because it's a common and erroneous argument in US politics about how well progressive politics supposedly works abroad. I don't want the US to turn into Canada, Switzerland, or New Zealand.
The real question is why, if your country is so wonderful and perfect, you are so obsessed with US internal politics and persist on telling Americans what they should do. I mean, nobody here is discussing privatizing Canada's, the UK's, New Zealand, or Australia's health care system, and if we bothered to discuss that, I wouldn't bother chiming in because I frankly don't give a f*ck. So what's your problem? Why do you persist on telling Americans that they should be like you? Envy? Inferiority complex? A nagging suspicion that your perfect little life in progressive paradise is a mirage after all?
Not at all. I'm saying that it is logically consistent under the US Constitution to apply Fourth Amendment protections only to American citizens and/or only within the US.
There is no language either way, so we actually have to analyze the situation. Just because you think that absent specific language, it applies to everybody everywhere doesn't make it so.
As for current government policy decisions, they are usually based on extensive legal and constitutional analysis, so that actually strengthens my argument.
Medical care is cheaper outside the US for many reasons that have nothing to do with single payer.
Medical licensing has nothing to do with whether someone is in the public system.
Oh, and which country would that be?
What you call "reality" is merely your fabrications and your ignorance.
You gave the example of people dying because their private insurance denies coverage and suggested that single payer improves that situation. That's obviously nonsense. The same kind of people who have to worry about denials by private insurance companies would have much more limited legal recourse or ability to recover damages under a single payer system. And since a single payer system largely destroys a mass market in private health care, they have far fewer options for pay-for-service even if they mortgage their home to pay for it.
And there have been single payer systems that do not give the option of private health care at all; in order to be a licensed, practicing physician, you need to be part of the public system. Some of my relatives had the misfortune to live with such systems. And in many public health care systems, private practice is restricted or burdened in some way as governments try to deal with problems that physicians leave the public system and voters get pissed off at the poor service they get in the public system relative to private health care.
I'm not lying, your reasoning is just beyond stupid, and you obviously haven't had to personally suffer under miserable single payer systems.
And the way it works in a single payer system is that the hospital tells you that treatment will be stopped, period. Unlike a private system, where you can sue for damages, recover money, and have many other options, in a single payer system you have no recourse and no options. That's better because...?
I.e., you're pulling this "fact" out of your ass.
If you actually read more than one sentence at a time, you'd see that I gave you the answer to my rhetorical question: your options for having malpractice and denial of coverage addressed are much worse in single payer systems than in almost any other system.
Here:
Switzerland was considering government restrictions on CEO pay and rejected them. He was proposing that any "Christian nation" ought to adopt such restrictions because not doing so would be inconsistent with Christianity. I pointed out that his reasoning was flawed.
US laws and the US Constitution only apply within the US. In other countries, other laws apply. There is nothing in the US Constitution that prohibits us from violating the laws of other countries.
Whether it applies to non-citizens visiting the US is a policy decision; it depends on the conditions under which non-citizens enter. The US could simply say to non-citizens "as condition of visiting the US, you agree to be exempted from Fourth Amendment Protections". In effect, that's what we already do when we give out visas.
And that's bringing back my mother... how? Besides, how do you think Blue Cross is going to "kill my mother"?
Just about anything is better than what we have now, because ACA made a bad situation worse. But single payer is still a lousy and inefficient system. Few countries have it, and those that do usually still have a separate private insurance market because it's inadequate. Have you ever lived under a single payer system? I have, and it sucks.
And how are you going to have your grievances addressed in a payer system? You'll be even less able to sue doctors or hospitals in such a system, because the first thing that's going to happen for cost control is to sharply limit payouts for malpractice. In fact, you won't even get anybody telling you that malpractice occurred. And most of the well-off will either go to private doctors or go abroad for their medical needs anyway.
And how do you determine "efficiency" for an organization that doesn't actually produce anything and where users are compelled under penalty of law to participate?
Wow, are you perhaps coming around to a free market position on health care by realizing that the kind of highly politicized micromanagement that the ACA has moved us to isn't working?
They very much have something to do with it: if you create financial incentives for hospitals and doctors to make people sick and keep them in the hospital, then that's what they are going to do.
Yes, and I pointed out that there is no hypocrisy, because the poster misrepresented government based redistribution as charity, and misunderstood capitalism as "every man for himself".
Both Christians conservatives and libertarians view progressive policies as both ineffective and amoral, or possibly even harmful and immoral. That's why there is no contradiction or hypocrisy.
"Special interests" are a phenomenon that only exists with respect to government. Therefore, the only way special interests can poison curricula is if government mandates curricula. It is your way of government mandated curricula that "invites abuse" by "special interests".
Why do you keep putting words in my mouth? I never said that "religion has no place in social studies". Stop lying.
And the evidence for that statement is... non-existent. In fact, centuries of experience around the world show that parents are perfectly capable of making good educational decisions for their kids. Public school systems are not a way of ensuring good education, they are a means of political indoctrination and ensuring conformity. Many public school systems in the world have that as an explicitly stated goal.
You seem to be confusing "legal" and "legitimate". It's legal, but not necessarily considered legitimate. In particular, many ISPs seem to interfere with torrent traffic. The more people use it for non-copyright-infringing purposes, the more pressure there is on ISPs to back off on their interference.
The difference between pre-ACA and post-ACA days is that incentives for the medical system to increase revenue by creating sick people and having people suffer in hospitals long term has now been extended to even more of the population.
As you observe, it's not a "gigantic shift", it is an expansion of a broken system to even more people; what ACA really should have done is moved in the opposite direction.
Everybody pays for the quack doctors because the costs are socialized and their quack services are part of the ACA coverage requirements.
That's a good thing. The more we use torrents for the distribution of legitimate content, the more such distribution methods will become legitimized.
Voters are given the erroneous impression that medicine can miraculously save them and want to be covered for anything, so they vote in politicians that mandate "adequate care"; when costs spiral out of control, they need to be socialized and distributed to those who don't subscribe to such foolishness and would choose cheaper plans if they could; and doctors, hospitals, and drug companies love it because it increases their revenues. You'd think that insurance companies would be against it, but they don't care anymore, since with ACA, people have no alternative but to pay whatever rates insurance companies demand or violate the law.
Unless you arrange for dying far from hospitals and emergency rooms, you can now look forward to spending months as a living corpse generating revenue for hospitals in the future. Welcome to the financially bright new future of universal health care in the US.