Which are you asking for? "efficient" in the sense of efficiency, or "efficient" as in it actually works successfully?
Advertisement
by Washington Democrats » Sat Sep 18, 2010 5:30 pm
by North Suran » Sat Sep 18, 2010 5:31 pm
Sibirsky wrote:Allowing insurers to compete across state line, tax incentives for the self insured, HSAs, removal of mandates. Evidence is the affordability of other goods and services of good quality that are provided by businesses competing in a free market.
Neu Mitanni wrote:As for NS, his latest statement is grounded in ignorance and contrary to fact, much to the surprise of all NSGers.
Geniasis wrote:The War on Christmas
by Sibirsky » Sat Sep 18, 2010 5:31 pm
by The Black Forrest » Sat Sep 18, 2010 5:31 pm
Sibirsky wrote:Fartsniffage wrote:
So what is the correct approach and what is the evidence supporting your theory?
Allowing insurers to compete across state line, tax incentives for the self insured, HSAs, removal of mandates. Evidence is the affordability of other goods and services of good quality that are provided by businesses competing in a free market.
by Greed and Death » Sat Sep 18, 2010 5:33 pm
Sibirsky wrote:Fartsniffage wrote:
So what is the correct approach and what is the evidence supporting your theory?
Allowing insurers to compete across state line, tax incentives for the self insured, HSAs, removal of mandates. Evidence is the affordability of other goods and services of good quality that are provided by businesses competing in a free market.
by Sibirsky » Sat Sep 18, 2010 5:33 pm
The Black Forrest wrote:Sibirsky wrote:Yes. It's idiotic. If you switch jobs, or move to another state, you have to switch insurance carriers. Neither one has anything to do with insurance.
And the tax penalty for those that want to buy their own.
Hmmm sounds like a good insurance plan is a good way to attract employees....
by Sibirsky » Sat Sep 18, 2010 5:33 pm
Washington Democrats wrote:Sibirsky wrote:Yes. It's idiotic. If you switch jobs, or move to another state, you have to switch insurance carriers. Neither one has anything to do with insurance.
And the tax penalty for those that want to buy their own.
So the fault lies with the people that were taken into employer insurance, not with the tricks of the insurance trade?
by Greed and Death » Sat Sep 18, 2010 5:34 pm
The Black Forrest wrote:Sibirsky wrote:Allowing insurers to compete across state line, tax incentives for the self insured, HSAs, removal of mandates. Evidence is the affordability of other goods and services of good quality that are provided by businesses competing in a free market.
Yea they would race to the state with the least regulation. Better coverage.
by Sibirsky » Sat Sep 18, 2010 5:34 pm
by Sungai Pusat » Sat Sep 18, 2010 5:35 pm
Meryuma wrote:In conservatism and right-libertarianism, the laissez-faire model of health care is seen as being that of a business. Why? A charitable model of health care isn't innately welfare-based: the Red Cross are a non-government medicine provider and they don't see themselves as a business.
Do we need government for free health care?
by Sibirsky » Sat Sep 18, 2010 5:35 pm
by Sibirsky » Sat Sep 18, 2010 5:35 pm
by Trippoli » Sat Sep 18, 2010 5:36 pm
by Greed and Death » Sat Sep 18, 2010 5:36 pm
by Sibirsky » Sat Sep 18, 2010 5:36 pm
by Pythria » Sat Sep 18, 2010 5:37 pm
There's no free anything, and no, we don't need socialized health care. Also, the Red Cross isn't nationalized. There's a difference between charity and socialism.Meryuma wrote:free health care
by Greed and Death » Sat Sep 18, 2010 5:38 pm
by Sungai Pusat » Sat Sep 18, 2010 5:39 pm
by Sibirsky » Sat Sep 18, 2010 5:39 pm
The Black Forrest wrote:Washington Democrats wrote:So the fault lies with the people that were taken into employer insurance, not with the tricks of the insurance trade?
Indeed. Don't you know if you remove all regulations, there wouldn't be any cheating anymore? Delay of claims, denial of claims for vagaue reasons or just outright BS.
tangent: I am having an argument with my freemarket minded insurance company whose "expert" a gynecologist said my allergist used an experimental test that really wasn't needed.
by Trippoli » Sat Sep 18, 2010 5:41 pm
by Fartsniffage » Sat Sep 18, 2010 5:41 pm
Sibirsky wrote:Whatever. Go read a book on economics, and how planned economies have learned.
by Sibirsky » Sat Sep 18, 2010 5:41 pm
Helertia wrote:Sibirsky wrote:Allowing insurers to compete across state line, tax incentives for the self insured, HSAs, removal of mandates. Evidence is the affordability of other goods and services of good quality that are provided by businesses competing in a free market.
Sorry, quick question - When you say affordable, what and for who exactly do you mean?
by Sungai Pusat » Sat Sep 18, 2010 5:42 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Atrito, Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Cheblonsk, Duvniask, Elejamie, Europa Undivided, GMS Greater Miami Shores 1, Neu California, Post War America, Tarsonis, Unmet Player
Advertisement