If Obama-care Is Overturned, Then What? « Mark America

Reblogged from MarkAmerica

The  question has been asked here on this site, and on others what will become of the state of health-care if Obama-care falls.  I’ve heard the gnashing of teeth among those who think we need some kind of health-care reform, and while I agree, I doubt most would agree with my own prescription. Cold-hearted.  Selfish.  Greedy.   These are all the terms that would be used by statists to describe my own visions of health-care reform.  Even a few alleged conservatives can’t quite bring themselves to endorse my view because at heart, they’re not free market capitalists.  You shouldn’t be surprised, as there are many self-proclaimed “conservatives” who are really nothing of the sort, and who would just as readily inflict and impose their vision of “fairness” as any left-wing socialist radical.  The difference is that they claim to be motivated by other ideas, or beliefs, but what remains universally true is that to impose them, they too must destroy liberty.  I oppose any such plan, plot, or program, irrespective of the source, and I think it’s time we had this little talk lest there be some confusion: I don’t support government involvement in any aspect of healthcare.  None.

Continue reading If Obama-care Is Overturned, Then What? « Mark America.

I probably don’t need to remind my readers that I completely agree. In fact, I would go farther and suggest that regulation itself is unwarranted, give that money to state Attorney’s General to combat insurance fraud (from both sides).

About Neo
Lineman, Electrician, Industrial Control technician, Staking Engineer, Inspector, Quality Assurance Manager, Chief Operations Officer

4 Responses to If Obama-care Is Overturned, Then What? « Mark America

  1. And yet additional regulation is precisely what would have kept the latest financial crisis averted….interesting perspective. It was the unfettered greed and corruption in an deregulated banking system that is widely viewed as the culprit for the housing market (and subsequent global economic) collapse. You see, purely rational economics and pure free markets do not account for irrational (from a societal standpoint) economic behavior. Put plainly, from a system perspective, greed is NOT rational economics. Hence the need for regulation. It’s not about simply stealing from the rich to give to the lazy (as it’s too often framed), but rather to ensure the composite stability of a society based on the irrational economic behaviors of individuals.

    Like

    • Sorry for the delay, Trevor, as always, you make me think, which is good. Anyway, I won’t concede your premise that additional regulation would have averted the financial crises, although regulators DOING their jobs might have. Most of that crisis was forced by Fannie/Freddie insisting on bad loans being made. If you loan an unemployed person a quarter mil to buy a house you shouldn’t be surprised when it doesn’t work out.

      No, greed is not rational economics, even if we use the old catchphrase “All that the market will bear” that indicates that if I set my price point above a rational level, the market won’t bear it. And everything we purchase/consume is in that market basket.

      Individual consumers will always behave irrationally (in my eyes or yours) but, it’s their money and their choice. If they want to eat at Mickey D’s, and live without electricity, it’s not my problem.

      Healthcare has been perverted as a marketplace over the years.

      First, FDR’s wage controls during WW II caused it to be turned into a corporate benefit when it should have been an individual choice.

      Second, and possibly connected causally, health care became the equivalent of having automotive insurance cover oil changes, instead of catastrophic problems.

      Third, even at the state level, the requirements to offer a policy are often ridiculous. Why should a single 59 yo man (That’s me) have coverage for contraception, which in some states I would be required to.

      SOLUTION:

      First, cross state marketing, If you want some unusual coverage you can probably find it.

      Second, Tort reform. No don’t make anybody immune but, make it difficult to file and carry our silly suits, such as suing MacDonald’s for serving hot coffee.
      This, to me, is one of the weaknesses of single-payor; they can not be held responsible for their choices.

      Prosecute fraud with all the severity of the law. If an insurance company doesn’t honor the contract, let the AG fix it. I can remember Ford Motor Company being criminally indicted for Pinto gas tanks, so it’s not impossible.

      Obviously, I don’t have all the answers but, I think this is the direction we should be heading. Thanks for your comment.

      Like

  2. sheafferhistorian says:

    I get the feeling there are regulations within the bill that people can agree upon…but the mandate stands in the way of compromise.

    Like

    • You may be right. I think however that the well may be poisoned as long as Obama, Reid, and company is in office. The message sent by forcing it through on a party line vote is just too strong.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.