"We had 8 years of 'free markets' and 'limited government',"what 8 years was this? because it certainly wasn't 2000-2008. the healthcare and insurance industries were heavily regulated in this period, and heavy regulation of the banking industry forced companies to make bad loans to lower income families who ended up wrecking the economy.
@ZellDThe core issue that you are raising is that a driver is taking on liabilities through the act of driving that he or she is not prepared to cover (due to a lack of assets) in the instance of an accidental event. In other words, there exists a possible cost that exceeds the assets of the individual.This is a problem because in a world without involuntary servitude and limited liability, the driver of limited assets in this situation is engaging in moral hazard. Society as a whole (or the counter party in particular) picks up the loss as they are unable to sue for damages.Knowing this, however, nothing would preclude the counter party from seeking out insurance that protects him or herself from individuals of limited assets. Furthermore, the language of such an insurance policy could be written so as to only allow the insurance company to pay out after the accident causer himself (or his insurance company) pays out for their owed portion. This would allow this type of insurance to be available at a lower cost.Looking at it this way, we see who would be motivated to not buy insurance: the well off individual whose marginal increases in income would provide diminishing returns in utility. It is he or she who does not need insurance see will through the power of the state be forced to buy it.The purpose of insurance here is solely for the benefit of the driver. There are no negative externalities. There is no market failure and no compelling reason for government action.In the end, people are only putting themselves at risk.Also, you could make an argument that mandating insurance increases risk taking behavior.
I don't need to. What is a republication in this context? And by literally, do you mean figuratively? Or are these so called republications actually turning into elephants and entering a room?
"Salon andHuffPo told me WSJ is bad now"No, WSJ told me WSJ is bad now -- by dint of Murdoch's purchase. That, and their long history of rabid ultra-right-wing opinion pieces.
"No, Libertarian-based arguments are garbage. In fact, they are a nice way to push for anarchy where the strongest, aka richest, survive."Funny then, that in most capitalist places with less government, the weak and poor are vastly better off then they are in the least capitalist places with the most government.
Right, I'm sure the founding fathers were totally ignorant for not envisioning a utopian society where the most productive citizens are required to give more than half of everything they earn to the government.
@elnerdoelnerdo Algebra is too hard. The crime here is that, yeah the books on Algebra are available, but do you honestly think anybody has read them?I truly do not believe that ANY congressman or senator has even read an Algebra book. It's too hard.We could have used some law (which i assume someone has to write and then read it) about the length-restrictions on Algebra books./s
Out of every health insurance premium dollar:■Doctors received 33% ■Hospitals received 20% ■Outpatient services received 15%■Prescription drugs cost 14%■Insurance company's' retained 13% for administration costs, marketing, taxes, compliance and profit■Other medical services 5%
reaper527Jan 3, 2010
"We had 8 years of 'free markets' and 'limited government',"what 8 years was this? because it certainly wasn't 2000-2008. the healthcare and insurance industries were heavily regulated in this period, and heavy regulation of the banking industry forced companies to make bad loans to lower income families who ended up wrecking the economy.
stochioJan 4, 2010
@ZellDThe core issue that you are raising is that a driver is taking on liabilities through the act of driving that he or she is not prepared to cover (due to a lack of assets) in the instance of an accidental event. In other words, there exists a possible cost that exceeds the assets of the individual.This is a problem because in a world without involuntary servitude and limited liability, the driver of limited assets in this situation is engaging in moral hazard. Society as a whole (or the counter party in particular) picks up the loss as they are unable to sue for damages.Knowing this, however, nothing would preclude the counter party from seeking out insurance that protects him or herself from individuals of limited assets. Furthermore, the language of such an insurance policy could be written so as to only allow the insurance company to pay out after the accident causer himself (or his insurance company) pays out for their owed portion. This would allow this type of insurance to be available at a lower cost.Looking at it this way, we see who would be motivated to not buy insurance: the well off individual whose marginal increases in income would provide diminishing returns in utility. It is he or she who does not need insurance see will through the power of the state be forced to buy it.The purpose of insurance here is solely for the benefit of the driver. There are no negative externalities. There is no market failure and no compelling reason for government action.In the end, people are only putting themselves at risk.Also, you could make an argument that mandating insurance increases risk taking behavior.
vegetablelambJan 4, 2010
YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BUT YOUR CHAINS!!!!!! (That is, unless there's something else you'd like to lose. I'd kinda like to lose 20 lbs myself)
Closed AccountJan 5, 2010
I don't need to. What is a republication in this context? And by literally, do you mean figuratively? Or are these so called republications actually turning into elephants and entering a room?
atarioJan 5, 2010
"Salon andHuffPo told me WSJ is bad now"No, WSJ told me WSJ is bad now -- by dint of Murdoch's purchase. That, and their long history of rabid ultra-right-wing opinion pieces.
andrew1193Jan 6, 2010
"No, Libertarian-based arguments are garbage. In fact, they are a nice way to push for anarchy where the strongest, aka richest, survive."Funny then, that in most capitalist places with less government, the weak and poor are vastly better off then they are in the least capitalist places with the most government.
bearkillJan 6, 2010
Right, I'm sure the founding fathers were totally ignorant for not envisioning a utopian society where the most productive citizens are required to give more than half of everything they earn to the government.
bacon_skodaJan 26, 2010
@elnerdoelnerdo Algebra is too hard. The crime here is that, yeah the books on Algebra are available, but do you honestly think anybody has read them?I truly do not believe that ANY congressman or senator has even read an Algebra book. It's too hard.We could have used some law (which i assume someone has to write and then read it) about the length-restrictions on Algebra books./s
bacon_skodaJan 26, 2010
so you are not an American...you are an Okie Dokie?oops. sorry. Fat Okie Dokie.
tdcarolan1Feb 12, 2010
It is amazing that some people don't see this...isn't it? Doctors do not provide their services for free!
tdcarolan1Feb 12, 2010
Out of every health insurance premium dollar:■Doctors received 33% ■Hospitals received 20% ■Outpatient services received 15%■Prescription drugs cost 14%■Insurance company's' retained 13% for administration costs, marketing, taxes, compliance and profit■Other medical services 5%