Posted on 08/12/2012 10:42:36 PM PDT by Praxeologue
You sound as if you you disagree with me and yet we have said the same thing. I gave a solution for improviong health care. Unfortunately most everyone uses that term when what they really mean is insurance....I gave the solution for thqt too.
I know it is hard to suggest that we agree but you bascically repeated what I had already said
Your solution is the correct one. As insurance, age and health (to include pre-existing conditions) are the primary determinants of risk. Income triggers (subsidy on the low end and means testing on the high end) are overlayed by the political system to address the self-interest of voter groups, sometimes referred to as 'fairness'. Everything you said about prompt payments and market-level compensation is addressed by private insurance.
My concern is that a large government component remains, occasioned by voter self-interest, that is likely to overwhelm private price signaling and retain price opacity. This government component could well be half the system by revenues and is new to the March 20th proposal.
Finally, all we have to consider is less than two pages (from the middle of page 52 to the top of page 54) of Rep. Ryan's March 20th Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Resolution. It's a tough read, unless you work on K Street. It is not, however, as clean and market-driven as Ryan's previous plans. My instinct is that, like all complex regulatory schemes (Sarbanes Oxley, Dodd Frank), it favors a few large companies. That, unfortunately, is a new development, expressed in vague and arcane language.
Well, in a sense Obamacare is nothing but the old Heritage Foundation idea. In 1993, Heritage called it a free market solution. That does not make it a free market solution in reality. I fail to see why Obama style regulation becomes acceptable when a RINO implements it.
For your reference, Rep. Ryan's proposal is set out on pages 52 through 54 of the Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Resolution dated March 20, 2012.
For later.
The key difference is obvious:
“The Ryan-type reforms are based on the premise that the solution to these problems is to put in place market incentives for efficiency and lower costs rather than inefficiency and higher costs, and that the way to do that is by creating a competitive insurance market in which consumer pressure moves insurers to provide more appealing and cheaper high-quality options, which in turn would drive providers to organize their work more efficiently.”
Obamacare is designed to drive out private insurers leaving the government as the sole payer. It is radically different.
Things are getting better!
“If the GOP keeps nominating presidential candidates farther and farther to the left, eventually that will bring conservatism back!”
The GOP has stood idly by as the march of socialism has reached the saturation point. I find it highly unlikely that Romney would be more socialist than, for instance, George W. Bush. I think the Ryan selection is at least an indicator that he will not be as socialist as that.
I think we’ll find out for sure after November if this is true, in which case your assessment will fail.
Of course, if you’re a true freeper you know that the only thing that matters in politicians is their chosen faith, and other such tribalist nonsense.
We will see where this socialist stupidity will lead. I have hopes that perhaps during a future Romney administration will mark the high-water mark of the great socialist big-government flood, and we can think about rebuilding a great nation. But as always appropriate skepticism towards politicians is warranted.
That is completely false. They have joyfully helped. I find it highly unlikely that Romney would be more socialist than, for instance, George W. Bush.
Hello? President Obama stole most of his domestic agenda from Romney.
“Hello? President Obama stole most of his domestic agenda from Romney.”
Friend, I’d wager that you and I are in alignment on almost everything in politics and the direction this country is going and what it will take to fix it.
So I understand - completely understand that you would make a hyperbolic statement like this out of frustration. You also know this is not true. Obama is a committed Marxist. Romney is not the candidate I’d have chosen, if it was left to me, but he’s the nominee. I like the Ryan pick for VP. I have to give credit where it is due.
I think Romney understands the gravity of our situation, and I think he’ll perform well to the right of GWB (I wish that was a more difficult task to accomplish!), as long as his feet are held to the fire. The pick of Ryan reinforces that supposition for me (nobody will really know until and unless he’s elected).
I could be wrong, but unlike the Christian Jihad wing of FR, I don’t think his religion will guide his potential presidency - I think his patriotism and his will to do what is right and necessary for the United States will drive it.
For you and me and all of us in America - let’s hope that’s the case - and that he gets elected in November.
Wait. Romney isn't to Mormon, he's not Mormon enough. Romney is less Mormon, than John Kerry was Catholic. Most Mormons are pro-life and culturally conservative.
“Wait. Romney isn’t to Mormon, he’s not Mormon enough. Romney is less Mormon, than John Kerry was Catholic. Most Mormons are pro-life and culturally conservative.”
I don’t know, but it seems even a little bit o’ Mormon is unacceptable in these parts. I’m just a WASP, so what do I know?
I generally prefer not to be tribal about politics, but that is my stodgy Bill of Rights thinking getting the better of me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.