Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (8640)	8/24/2009 12:12:24 PM
From: Lane3	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

I explained that he was supporting 'central planing' against states rights. Except that he wasn't. 6. Yes there would be some tort reform. Forgot to put it in my most recent list. Should have. 8. Individuals would be required to get some minimum type of policy (??? Devil in the details). IMO, the devil is in the concept, not the details. I can see requiring insurance if you are building a socialized system, which can't tolerate free riders. With a free market "REAL" or otherwise, I don't see the point. They would not be free riders. They wouldn't ride at all. What rationale do you have to offer for that requirement?

To: Road Walker who wrote (8640)	8/26/2009 3:46:25 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 42652

A more open market is not central planning. Arguably the feds imposing that open market might be "anti-federalist"/anti-"states rights" action, but its promoting the opposite of what the term "central planning" normally means. State or federal, its central planning if the economic decisions are made in a command and control manner by the government. What's nice about the particular plan of allowing interstate selling of insurance, is that not only does it allow for more market competition, its also is a matter of interstate commerce so it doesn't really seem like the feds muscling in on what's constitutionally limited to state control. Its not a phony interstate commerce issue (like federal laws against marijuana selling when the producer, distributor, retailer/dealer, and consumer are all in the same state, its actually interstate commerce.