[jlisenbe]

Too complex, what ever happened to equality

The concept of equality of outcome is not to be found (thank goodness) in the Constitution. The only equality I know of there is found in the concept of equal protection of the law, which is completely different.

[paraclete]

Is not the ACA a law? Therefore if it doesn't afford individuals equal protection from excessive charges it is unconstitutional, same goes for what ever followed it

[jlisenbe]

Is not the ACA a law? Therefore if it doesn't afford individuals equal protection from excessive charges it is unconstitutional, same goes for what ever followed it.

There is no constitutional protection from "excessive charges".

[talaniman]

Yes there is. The process of law delegates the regulation of the insurance industry to the states and they are tasked with approving those rate hikes, or excessive charges as you put it. The insurance companies have states over a barrel as they can always leave, but in this they act together when requesting or apply for those rate hikes. You have seen Big Biz in general employ this tactics at state federal and local levels. It's called a lobby, and is worth big bucks in the goal of maximizing profitability of their companies with favorable laws on all levels, to legalize those excessive charges. Walmart has done this for years, getting all kinds of tax breaks and subsidies from locals to build and employ citizens. They are not alone and the insurance industry does it just as well.

Think Amazon and GM for perfect examples of this strategy, that create huge revenue streams for years and decades that WE pay for. Think how the big box retail stores partner to manufacture it's goods overseas and ship them here for higher profits, or close existing facilities here for overseas "CHEAPER" labor costs and less regulations. It's a systemic problem those excessive charges, but its entirely LEGAL. I submit we have the evidence of what happens when companies gets a financial windfall from government that is indicative of a broken business model, that allows for citizens to get nickeled and dimed to death.

So by definition there is no such thing as excessive charges since the markets bear them and passes them along to consumers, and consumers have the right to walk away from them. Why don't they?

Specifically to this thread I ask what good is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness if you ignore the need for good health?

[jlisenbe]

Yes there is.

No, there is not. You went through a long, wordy explanation in which you never referred to the Constitution. Why? Because there is no constitutional protection from "excessive charges". You even admit that, " It's a systemic problem those excessive charges, but its entirely LEGAL.". Well, if it's legal, then it's legal.

You might notice that there are very few companies that market their products as "100% made in America". Why? Because people are not willing to pay the higher costs of products made in America as opposed to being made in a foreign country. I've actually tried to buy American in the past, and I found that it's a very difficult thing to do. Just finding clothes, for instance, made in America is difficult. When buying tools, I notice that the relatively few American made tools will be two to four times the price of the imported ones. I'm not sure what the answer is to that. If we restrict imports, then the libs give Mr. Trump heck for doing so and prices will go up.

But there is no constitutional guarantee against "excessive charges". It's nonsense.

[talaniman]

Wrong, The Bill of Rights clearly outlines the right to redress greivances.

https://constitution.com/bill-rights/

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Should have used this link before, sorry. So gather your EVIDENCE to prove your claim of EXCESSIVE charges and go to court as laid out in the constitution. SIMPLE!

[jlisenbe]

Wrong, The Bill of Rights clearly outlines the right to redress greivances.

This has become comical. I say, "You can't quote the Constitution as to a guarantee against excessive charges." You reply, "Yes, I can. Look at the Bill of rights. It says we can petition the government for a redress of grievances." Really?? Well, that is very impressive, but where does it say we have a guarantee against "excessive charges"? And why didn't you say we also have freedom of speech and the right to keep and bear arms? They have about the same relevance to being protected against excessive charges, which is to say NO RELEVANCE.

You have no evidence at all. None, period. There is no constitutional guarantee against excessive charges. If there was, then you would have quoted it.

The great protection against excessive charges is the free market. That's why I can't sell a 12 ounce Coke in practically any place in America for 10 dollars. Why? Because the store down the street will sell them for 95 cents. It's a great system. It generally only breaks down when the government establishes protectionist policies such as New Jersey not allowing people to pump their own gas, and thereby guaranteeing that people will pay more for gas. It also breaks down when monopolies are formed by private businesses.

[talaniman]

Your free market solution hasn't stopped those excessive charges. Must be some loophole in your logic.

[jlisenbe]

Your free market solution hasn't stopped those excessive charges. Must be some loophole in your logic.

That's sort of my point. There is very little free market in the health care field. Prices are not posted or advertised. A doctor sends me for tests. I have no idea what they will cost, and there are few alternatives to check out.

[talaniman]

We make the same point almost as there is very little free market anywhere except the MO'MONEY part, with plenty of loopholes to hide behind. It's a pervasive systemic problem, illustrated by deficit spending for permanent tax cuts for the rich and temporary consumer tax cuts for the middle income citizens.

[jlisenbe]

We make the same point almost as there is very little free market anywhere except the MO'MONEY part, with plenty of loopholes to hide behind. It's a pervasive systemic problem, illustrated by deficit spending for permanent tax cuts for the rich and temporary consumer tax cuts for the middle income citizens.

Bread, bicycles, guns, furniture, soft drinks, televisions, tires, flashlights, shoes, jackets, washing machines, windows, hats, and thousands of other items all benefit enormously from free market competition. That is not true of nearly all of the health care business.

There is no such thing as a permanent tax cut for anyone. Deficit spending cannot be fixed by taxing the rich. No way, no how. You could double the taxes on the rich and still have deficits. TOO MUCH SPENDING.

[Athos]

The great protection against excessive charges is the free market. ........... It's a great system. It generally only breaks down when the government establishes protectionist policies such as New Jersey not allowing people to pump their own gas, and thereby guaranteeing that people will pay more for gas.

Your argument is flawed.

In the northeast, full-serve New Jersey is the second cheapest in gas prices - only Maine is slightly lower. Nationwide, New Jersey is cheaper than 20 states - all of which are self-serve.

There are many factors effecting the price of gasoline - a free market being only one. Adam Smith's free market represented the economies of late 18th century England where business tended to be small entities - cottage industries and mom and pop outfits. The world has changed since then.

Economies are enormously complex these days and cannot operate efficiently without appropriate government regulation.

[jlisenbe]

In the northeast, full-serve New Jersey is the second cheapest in gas prices - only Maine is slightly lower. Nationwide, New Jersey is cheaper than 20 states - all of which are self-serve.

Yes, but thanks to the government mandate against self serve, it is plainly higher than it would otherwise be.

Adam Smith's free market represented the economies of late 18th century England where business tended to be small entities - cottage industries and mom and pop outfits. The world has changed since then.

Yes, but the price and quality advantages reaped from the free market have not changed. It's still just as effective and likely much more so.

Economies are enormously complex these days and cannot operate efficiently without appropriate government regulation.

Free enterprise does not need a complete absence of government regulation, but that it should be minimal and not grant competitive advantages to one group above another. For instance, there should be strict laws against monopolies. It works best where competition is allowed to flourish. Thus we see an enormous problem in the field of health care. There is but little competition with price, and the consumer typically never knows what the price will be until the medical care is finished.

[paraclete]

So has anyone reached the conclusion that BO created the conditions for the perfect storm in health care costs

[jlisenbe]

So has anyone reached the conclusion that BO created the conditions for the perfect storm in health care costs

As much as I would like to say yes, I have to admit it was an enormous problem long before 2009. Now did he do anything to curtail it? No.

[talaniman]

Bread, bicycles, guns, furniture, soft drinks, televisions, tires, flashlights, shoes, jackets, washing machines, windows, hats, and thousands of other items all benefit enormously from free market competition. That is not true of nearly all of the health care business.

I see your issue now. You equate stuff with good health outcomes. Not unusual for someone without a health issue. I think those that NEED health care would beg to differ. You mix apples and oranges and expect the same strategy to work. Let me ask why is there no competition in the health insurance business and whose fault is that?

There is no such thing as a permanent tax cut for anyone. Deficit spending cannot be fixed by taxing the rich. No way, no how. You could double the taxes on the rich and still have deficits. TOO MUCH SPENDING.

Corporate tax cuts are permanent according to the bill passed by repubs. Individual tax cuts expire in 5 years.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.cbb3b06782d5

And

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...permanent.html


[QUOTEThe 20 percent corporate rate in the Tax Cut and Jobs Act will be statutorily permanent but politically provisional—and thus temporary. In refusing to court Democratic support for the process, Republicans further unravel their already dicey argument that this permanent 20 percent corporate rate will dramatically and broadly bring prosperity. If corporations really do need the certainty of permanence before acting on a 20 percent tax rate, they won’t find it here, making the bill little more than a temporary cash transfer to stockholders.
[/QUOTE]

I guess nothing can be considered permanent when a future congress can change things So I will concede your point.

[jlisenbe]

Corporate tax cuts are permanent according to the bill passed by repubs. Individual tax cuts expire in 5 years.

Corporate taxes are not simply taxes on the rich. Tens of millions of people profit from investments in corporations. Anyone on a retirement plan would be one of them.

[talaniman]

I am familiar with the theory, but the facts of your statement have to be verified by facts after an outcome and so far I doubt seriously if the data backs up your theory. My theory is that the tax cuts as structured, without closing high end loop holes as incentives to invest in economic growth offer more options for the recipients than they do for the general economy, trillions in deficits, and point to GM's corporate decision to close old non profitable plants in America and build new ones in Mexico as an example of poorly structured and poorly implemented policy.

So tell those workers losing their jobs how great those tax cuts work for them since having no paycheck leaves nothing to tax in the first place. GM stock went up after the announcement. Yeah I'm sure that's great for Americans.

[jlisenbe]

"In an April 2012 Gallup poll, 53 percent of respondents said they had money invested in the stock market. That was the smallest percentage in any poll since Gallup began tracking the number. The high was 67 percent in June 2002."

What should I tell the people who love 3.7% unemployment??

[talaniman]

Maybe we should see how those towns in 3 states are affected and if they are as thrilled as you are. The same thing happened to those plants in Indiana after they got their tax cuts from the state to keep them. Are we seeing a pattern here?