Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
Richard wrote: > > > A few people have been removed, a couple of them long term listees and one >> was a moderator here. We definitely are not queasy when it comes to pulling >> the pin. >> > > I'm definitely queasy about it, but I guess I'm not part of "we". > I'm queasy as well. To my knowledge the only people kicked off of the list by the moderators had threatened violence against other list members. At the risk of pissing people that I've known and respected for some time, I'd like to say that I really don't think that JW has been very offensive and the debate he has spurred has often been interesting and informative. You all _know_ I don't agree with most of what he has to say, but I think he has every right to express himself as long as he behaves in a relatively civilized manner. Has he been arrogant at times? Maybe, but that sort of thing is difficult to judge via email. One can often sound arrogant or diffident or whiny and not really mean to. But if arrogance was the criteria by which we judged people for their on list fitness, how long would JDG have lasted? And as much as I disagreed vehemently with that other John, I miss not having him here to spar with. Please, lets get back to the health care debate and quit with the personal stuff. Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 10:49 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote: > On the Americans are stupid issue, I would agree somewhat, but I would use > the terms ignorant and/or intellectualy lazy rather than stupid. I would go with lazy more than ignorant, even though ignorant may be technically accurate, I tend to think that it is so easy to find so much information nowadays, that ignorance on a subject is often due to laziness (or apathy, depending on the subject). I agree that, in most cases he cites, stupid does not apply. > Have you seen Religulous? Yes, but I do not remember very much. At the moment, I can only remember 3 scenes. One where he questions a guy whose job is to teach gay people to marry someone of the opposite sex. Another one was a trailer church. And the most memorable one was inside a mosque, simply because I was surprised to see wall-to-wall carpet (I guess I am used to seeing Christian cathedrals with no carpet) ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
Rob said: A few people have been removed, a couple of them long term listees and one was a moderator here. We definitely are not queasy when it comes to pulling the pin. I'm definitely queasy about it, but I guess I'm not part of "we". Rich ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Brin-:L the 2nd decade
Trent Shipley wrote: > We know each other and know each > > other's positions. > > What about those of us who try not to have positions? Don't worry Trent, you are as ambiguous as ever. 8^) Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 11:36 AM, John Williams wrote: > It is interesting what some people find rude which does not seem rude > to others. I suspect that a neutral observer would look at my posts > during the last few weeks and judge that they are not at all rude. I > have been asking some uncomfortable questions, but not making any > obviously rude remarks. > > The interesting thing is that the data do not support the claim that > my posts make people less likely to communicate here. Rather, just the > opposite. If you look at the volume of non-JW posts as a function of > JW-posts to this list, there is a remarkably large positive > correlation. > > Anyone listen to Bill Maher? I disagree with a lot of what he says, > but he is entertaining. He speaks his mind, and is not afraid to > discuss uncomfortable issues. I have never found him rude, but I > suspect others may have a different opinion. To each his own. Here's > an example of an uncomfortable issue that he discusses: > > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/new-rule-smart-president_b_253996.html > He can be a little rude at times, but I watch him every week and probably agree with him more often than you. On the Americans are stupid issue, I would agree somewhat, but I would use the terms ignorant and/or intellectualy lazy rather than stupid. Have you seen Religulous? Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:15 PM, xponentrob wrote: > No one particular cares how many lurkers there are. I care, that is why I asked. > It is pretty much the same as using "we" when speaking for Americans even > though Americans are very diverse there is still considerable commonality. Usually when I hear someone say something like that, I ask for clarification, since the meaning is ambiguous. >"We" are trying to gently guide you away from culture shock and toward >assimilation into the group in some way. You are of course free to try, but as I said, I have no interest in joining your mysterious "we" clique. > We have no cliques. We (not "we") will just have to disagree about that, then. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Rceeberger wrote: > > On 8/17/2009 11:09:15 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Jo Anne wrote: >> >> > And there I rest my case on the tone thing. >> >> I wrote that as clearly and as sincerely as I could. I assure you >> there were no undertones intended. >> >> > Well, first I'd have a good laugh and then I'd ask Charlie what we could >> do >> > to keep speaking to each other, and could I help him get his panties >> all >> > un-bunched up because that could be pretty uncomfortable. Unfortunately, >> my >> > panties are riding up after trying to talk to you about health care, >> like >> > his did about pollution regulation. >> >> He did not try to discuss pollution regulation with me at all -- I >> would have been happy to discuss it with him, and to clear up the >> apparent question that he had about me allegedly changing my mind. But >> he just wrote FUCK YOU and then said that he kill filed me. >> > > That is what I mean by "intentionally obtuse". > Add "intentionally selective memory" to the list. What is what you mean? I assure you, I am not being intentially "obtuse". I find your posts very difficult to understand. When I do read between the lines, you tell me I am jumping to conclusions, and when I do not, you tell me I am intentionally obtuse. You tell me there is a group of "we" that all know what everyone else thinks, and then you and another of the "we"s answer one of my questions oppositely. Perhaps I am obtuse, but it is not intentional. I am definitely confused. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
On 8/17/2009 11:04:59 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 8:48 PM, xponentrob > wrote: > > > But no, I do not give you the benefit of the doubt. I think I have you > pegged as exactly the kind of intentionally obtuse person you appear to be. > > > My apologies for not being as perceptive as you are. > > > No, when I say "we" in this context, I mean that "we" have in the past > booted people from the list as a group in most cases. > > So, is there is a vote of the 50 unnamed "we" people David referred to? > In such cases, yes. xponent Democracy Maru rob ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
On 8/17/2009 11:03:58 PM, Trent Shipley (tship...@deru.com) wrote: > > No, when I say "we" in this context, I mean that "we" have in the past > booted people from the list as a group in most cases. There being no one > person in particular one can suck up to in order to avoid consequences, it > behooves everyone to be "generally" inoffensive. A few people have been > removed, a couple of them long term listees and one was a moderator here. > We definitely are not queasy when it comes to pulling the pin. > > > > xponent > > Wide Borders Maru > > rob > > Who was the moderator who got booted? > Remember JVB? > Are you suggesting J.W. is near that limit? I'm not nearly that ready > to take offense yet. > No, but anyone who is in a spat on this list should be aware of the potential. It keeps all of us on better behavior. Personally, I'd rather leave a list of my own accord than be forcibly removed from one. xponent In Disgrace Maru rob ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
John Williams wrote: > On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 8:48 PM, xponentrob wrote: > >> But no, I do not give you the benefit of the doubt. I think I have you >> pegged as exactly the kind of intentionally obtuse person you appear to be. > > My apologies for not being as perceptive as you are. > >> No, when I say "we" in this context, I mean that "we" have in the past >> booted people from the list as a group in most cases. > > So, is there is a vote of the 50 unnamed "we" people David referred to? > No. There is discussion about the excommunication and then the list moderators perform the ceremony. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
- Original Message - From: "John Williams" To: "Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion" Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 10:19 PM Subject: Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market > On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Rceeberger wrote: > >> We are friends who have been with each other for many years. >> We can finish each others sentences. >> We are practically fucking married for crissakes. >> Brin-L and the Culture list are bicameral lobes of a humongous hive mind. >> We are gay telepaths whose thought balloons are filled with big pink fluffy >> gothic fonts and we are all laughing at your sloppy desk. >> >> Do you see people objecting to the "We"? > > No. I do not see myself "objecting" to "we" either. Just asking questions. > > Anyway, that did not answer my question about how many list > subscribers there are, and how many are covered by the "we". No one particular cares how many lurkers there are. Officially, they are our readers since that is what they do on this list. Occasionally one perks up and adds something to the discussion and on rare occasions someone will contact someone else offlist. But for the most part "We" are the entertainment and they are our beloved audience even though the star of the show appears only infrequently. >Since no > one is answering, I will jump to a conclusion. Apologies if it is > unwarranted. It is. >It seems to me that it is important to you to demonstrate > to me that there are a number of people on this list who are like you > and agree with you on most subjects and philosophies of life, and that > I am not among that number. No, that is not important at all, because it is irrelevant to the subject at hand. When it comes to the life of this list, most of the longtimers can easily speak for the group because we share a great deal of common history. It is pretty much the same as using "we" when speaking for Americans even though Americans are very diverse there is still considerable commonality. Happens all the time on this list in both situations. As for you not being included in the "we" when any of us are responding to you, you are still quite new here, disagreeable, and prone to pushing buttons. "We" are trying to gently guide you away from culture shock and toward assimilation into the group in some way. >Perhaps it will simplify future > discussions for me to assure you that yes, I am aware of that, and I > am not trying to join your clique, start my own clique, or compete > with your clique in any way. I am just asking questions. > We have no cliques. But we do have Jedi Mind Tricks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu_moia-oVI xponent Your Source For Pure Evil Maru rob ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 8:48 PM, xponentrob wrote: > But no, I do not give you the benefit of the doubt. I think I have you pegged > as exactly the kind of intentionally obtuse person you appear to be. My apologies for not being as perceptive as you are. > No, when I say "we" in this context, I mean that "we" have in the past booted > people from the list as a group in most cases. So, is there is a vote of the 50 unnamed "we" people David referred to? ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
> No, when I say "we" in this context, I mean that "we" have in the past booted > people from the list as a group in most cases. There being no one person in > particular one can suck up to in order to avoid consequences, it behooves > everyone to be "generally" inoffensive. A few people have been removed, a > couple of them long term listees and one was a moderator here. We definitely > are not queasy when it comes to pulling the pin. > > xponent > Wide Borders Maru > rob Who was the moderator who got booted? Are you suggesting J.W. is near that limit? I'm not nearly that ready to take offense yet. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Brin-:L the 2nd decade
> We know each other and know each > other's positions. What about those of us who try not to have positions? ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
- Original Message - From: "John Williams" To: "Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion" Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 10:02 PM Subject: Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market > On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Rceeberger wrote: >> >> On 8/17/2009 9:12:11 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Rceeberger >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > On 8/17/2009 8:48:30 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote: >>> >> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Rceeberger >>> >> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> > Your statement reads quite humorously. >>> >> >>> >> That's great! Apparently there is a fine line between humorous and >>> >> rude and sincere. Feel free to give my posts the benefit of the >>> >> doubt... >>> > >>> > Oh, you have received that particular benefit in spades. >>> > Still here, right? >>> >>> Are you implying that you would kill file me if you did not give my >>> posts the benefit of the doubt? >> >> No. >> If certainty was high that you were "just a troll" you would be kicked from >> the list. > > Perhaps there was a misunderstanding. I meant that you might give my > posts the benefit of the doubt -- singular you. Rceeberger, that is. For clarity: Robert Seeberger But no, I do not give you the benefit of the doubt. I think I have you pegged as exactly the kind of intentionally obtuse person you appear to be. > Or did you mean that you have access to the subscriber list and you, > personally, would have removed my name if you did not give me the > benefit of the doubt? No, when I say "we" in this context, I mean that "we" have in the past booted people from the list as a group in most cases. There being no one person in particular one can suck up to in order to avoid consequences, it behooves everyone to be "generally" inoffensive. A few people have been removed, a couple of them long term listees and one was a moderator here. We definitely are not queasy when it comes to pulling the pin. xponent Wide Borders Maru rob ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 8:24 PM, David Hobby wrote: > I note you snipped the etiquette guidelines. : ) I did snip it. I did read it. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Brin-:L the 2nd decade
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 8:22 PM, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: > Actually, the same question has been asked and answered N times. N=1, David just answered the question, mostly. "we" apparently refers to an unnamed group of about 50 people. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
John Williams wrote: ... We don't like straw men or trolls ... There's that "we" several more times. How many people subscribe to this email list, and how many of them do you speak for when you say "we"? How did you determine that these people have that view? You're not going to claim that all the lurkers are the "silent majority" are you? : ) No. I don't really follow you. John-- I don't have current figures, but I'd guess the list has around 200 subscribers, but only 50 regular posters. (Welcome back, Jo Anne!) We call the other 150 "lurkers". It looked like you were setting up to argue that the "we" was only 50/200 of the list, or whatever. Which would not have been a particularly valid argument. ... I do not want anything in particular with regards to what list subscribers believe. ... I note you snipped the etiquette guidelines. : ) ---David ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Brin-:L the 2nd decade
Original Message: - From: John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 20:08:44 -0700 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market >I was just asking questions. Actually, the same question has been asked and answered N times. Nomominal social behavior is for the asker to either help the various responders understand why he doesn't get the answer or to acknowledge that his question has been answered. BTW, like an old married couple, we're sorta exhausted lines of discussion on this list because hundreds to thousands of posts have been written by the long standing members of the list. We know each other and know each other's positions. For this, and other reasons that Rob alluded to, traffic on this list has dropped down. I'll give you points for being a novelty. It's easy to respond to your posts, many of them are hanging curves, belt high over the middle of the plate for those who differ with you. But, I think most people, and not just me, would like actual dialoglike we use to have. BTW, I still am having IM discussions with a former list member who's become a very good friendand I've learned a lot. IIRC, he's publishing in four different types of professional journals virtually simultaneously as we write. Dan M. mail2web.com Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft® Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:54 PM, David Hobby wrote: > John Williams wrote: >> >> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: >> >>> We have a sense of community here, along with the usual collaterals of >>> explicit and implicit standards of behavior and discourse. We do, >>> indeed. >>> We don't like straw men or trolls (which I can't help observing are at >>> two >>> rather opposite ends of the materials spectrum, whatever that might >>> signify). >> >> There's that "we" several more times. How many people subscribe to this >> email list, and how many of them do you speak for when you say "we"? How >> did you determine that these people have that view? > > You're not going to claim that all the lurkers are > the "silent majority" are you? : ) No. I don't really follow you. > This is a silly > discussion, because every statement Nick made above > would get broad agreement on most established lists. Have you done that experiment, or are you speculating? Perhaps your contention is true, but I think that the term "community" and also "straw man" are ambiguous, so the broad agreement would not necessarily be meaningful, since people would be thinking they were agreeing to different things. I notice, for example, that "straw man" gets used by several people here in a way that I have trouble following. > What do you want, that we should all sign a petition? I do not want anything in particular with regards to what list subscribers believe. "We" gets thrown around by several posters, and it was unclear to me in several cases who was being referred to. I was just asking questions. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Rceeberger wrote: > > On 8/17/2009 9:12:11 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Rceeberger >> wrote: >> > >> > On 8/17/2009 8:48:30 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote: >> >> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Rceeberger >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Your statement reads quite humorously. >> >> >> >> That's great! Apparently there is a fine line between humorous and >> >> rude and sincere. Feel free to give my posts the benefit of the >> >> doubt... >> > >> > Oh, you have received that particular benefit in spades. >> > Still here, right? >> >> Are you implying that you would kill file me if you did not give my >> posts the benefit of the doubt? > > No. > If certainty was high that you were "just a troll" you would be kicked from > the list. Perhaps there was a misunderstanding. I meant that you might give my posts the benefit of the doubt -- singular you. Rceeberger, that is. Or did you mean that you have access to the subscriber list and you, personally, would have removed my name if you did not give me the benefit of the doubt? ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
>Did someone say John's been on this list for 10 years? Did I misread that?? I told John many of us had been. Maybe that got mangled. Maybe by me. :-) Dan M. myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft® Windows® and Linux web and application hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
John Williams wrote: On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: We have a sense of community here, along with the usual collaterals of explicit and implicit standards of behavior and discourse. We do, indeed. We don't like straw men or trolls (which I can't help observing are at two rather opposite ends of the materials spectrum, whatever that might signify). There's that "we" several more times. How many people subscribe to this email list, and how many of them do you speak for when you say "we"? How did you determine that these people have that view? John-- You're not going to claim that all the lurkers are the "silent majority" are you? : ) This is a silly discussion, because every statement Nick made above would get broad agreement on most established lists. What do you want, that we should all sign a petition? ---David FYI, there ARE etiquette guidelines for the list. (In fact, googling finds several slightly different versions. Here's an old one from the archives, at a previous host: http://www.mail-archive.com/bri...@cornell.edu/msg13842.html Julia Thompson, posting in 2002.) Etiquette Guidelines The Brin-L Mailing List exists for the discussion of matters pertaining to the writings of Drs. Brin and Benford and topics of interest to list members. As members of a civilization, these are the guidelines we agree to live under: - We post as if every message we write as if we were going to read it aloud in front of the whole group. - We sign our messages with our name and e-mail address. - We are tolerant of subject threads that bore us to death. - We keep subject lines appropriate to the contents of the message. - We do NOT include the entire message to which we are replying. - We DO include a few lines if our reply can't stand on its own. - We DO keep attributions correctly assigned to the original poster. - We do NOT send terse, one line replies. - We use emphasis to make our comments clear. (Stars, smilies, etc.) - We use white space and keep our paragraphs short. - We keep our line length below 80 characters. - If our reply is more appropriately directed only at the original poster, we don't send it to the entire list. - If our message is funny, frivolous, humourous, or is generally silly in nature, we add a "Silly/Humor" flag to the subject line so others can identify it easily. - We flag long messages with "GLL", "ELL" or "L3" in the subject line. (In deference to our Grand Past Alpha Mails this stands for "Gord like length", "Eythain like length" or "Lazh like length") We agree that: - Questions are welcome. - Extensive discussions that get into the nitty-gritty of the subject are welcome. - Funny, silly, frivolous, amusing, playful, joking, cheerful postings are welcome. Original humor, especially if it pertains to an existing thread, is quite welcome. Forwarding blanket humor from other sources is discouraged, but not forbidden. - We are a multilingual group, and as such we tolerate mistakes and idiosyncracies when they show up on the list in English (American English). We remember that some folks may not be the best typists around, and tolerate those mistakes as well. We all will kindly answer any questions others have about our native language in a friendly manner. - Brin and Benford ROCK. =+)) Trevor Sands is the best screen writer ever. Most of the time we think Iain Banks is pretty cool, too. We will further endeavor to remember, as David Brin says, to "Remind yourself, now and then, to say the following phrase: 'I am a member of a civilization.' (IAAMOAC). Our society has its flaws, but if you ponder history, and cantankerous human nature, it's astonishing how far we've come. We just don't say IAAMOAC often enough. ... " We further agree that: - Personal attacks, whether direct or indirect are not welcome. These should be handled off list, and if you disagree with some controversial point, direct the attack at the argument, not the person. - Abusive or inflammatory language is not welcome. - Profanity is not welcome. - Chain letters are not welcome. - Mail bombs to each other are not welcome. - The Listowners have the right to remove someone who does not wish to comport themselves in a manner concordant with our civilization. Thank you, Jo Anne Lady of the List, Bearer of the High Standards, Owner of the 7th Chalice of Betazed etc. ( I still like these titles! Maybe I should get a business card for introductions with these titles on it? ;+)) Note: This list was written using another set of guidelines originally composed by Donna Hrynkiw of Vancouver, British Columbia -- and is used with her permission. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Besides these guidelines, please keep in mind that posting attachments is a no-no, for reasons of bandwidth (some people *do* have to pay per minute, others have finitely-sized inboxes and I'm tired of error
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:25 PM, John Williams > wrote: >> >> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: >> >> > We have a sense of community here, along with the usual collaterals of >> > explicit and implicit standards of behavior and discourse. We do, >> > indeed. >> > We don't like straw men or trolls (which I can't help observing are at >> > two >> > rather opposite ends of the materials spectrum, whatever that might >> > signify). >> >> There's that "we" several more times. How many people subscribe to this >> email list, and how many of them do you speak for when you say "we"? How >> did you determine that these people have that view? > > I'm a highly evolved mammal with a brain the size of a dog's breakfast. > That's how I know. Which does not answer the first question. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: > Is health care so unimportant that it deserves no regulation? We are starting from different worldviews, I think. I believe in freedom for people to make agreements with each other as they choose -- that is my starting point. You appear to believe that freedom is something that is to be permitted by government, when it concerns something unimportant, otherwise, if something is important, than the government should restrict the freedom of people to make consensual agreements. So I would say that health care is important, and therefore people deserve to have free choice in the matter. > Is health care so unimportant that people should have to compete with each > other (that's the other side of the equation when the companies are > competing) for basic care? I cannot answer the should, I can only answer that the fact is that people do have to contend for limited resources in the world. There is not enough health care to give everyone in the world unlimited care. And several people that have posted here do not seem to believe that Americans should allocate their health care resources equally among all Americans AND non-Americans. So there is definitely competition among people in the world for health care. Just as there is competition for food and shelter. > If we take it as a given that a consumer-driven > market for health care is better, then why not do the same with roads, > police, water, oxygen, etc.? I'm not sure I follow the oxygen part. For the others, I would like to see more privately run roads and less government interference in water companies. I've stated here recently that I think police are best handled through government, since I think it is less likely to be suborned than private police. Another related question is why are the markets for essentials like food and shelter largely free of government interference, while health care markets have such extensive government interference? I think it has to do with people being afraid and emotional about health care, and not being good at rational analysis on the subject. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:25 PM, John Williams wrote: > On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: > > > We have a sense of community here, along with the usual collaterals of > > explicit and implicit standards of behavior and discourse. We do, > indeed. > > We don't like straw men or trolls (which I can't help observing are at > two > > rather opposite ends of the materials spectrum, whatever that might > > signify). > > There's that "we" several more times. How many people subscribe to this > email list, and how many of them do you speak for when you say "we"? How > did you determine that these people have that view? I'm a highly evolved mammal with a brain the size of a dog's breakfast. That's how I know. Nick ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 6:32 PM, John Williams wrote: > > > >>Actually, a health insurance market without government interference > >>would be a lot more consumer-driven than the current system, which > >>is why I mentioned it. In nearly all cases, if there is to be a > > > > Howso? > > Competition for consumer business. Is there some way in which "consumer-driven" means something other than "unregulated?" Is health care so unimportant that it deserves no regulation? Is health care so unimportant that people should have to compete with each other (that's the other side of the equation when the companies are competing) for basic care? If we take it as a given that a consumer-driven market for health care is better, then why not do the same with roads, police, water, oxygen, etc.? How do you draw the line there? Nick ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: > We have a sense of community here, along with the usual collaterals of > explicit and implicit standards of behavior and discourse. We do, indeed. > We don't like straw men or trolls (which I can't help observing are at two > rather opposite ends of the materials spectrum, whatever that might > signify). There's that "we" several more times. How many people subscribe to this email list, and how many of them do you speak for when you say "we"? How did you determine that these people have that view? ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 12:02 PM, John Williams wrote: > On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 8:15 AM, David Hobby wrote: > > > Hi. Seriously, are you trolling, or just > > dense? : ) We rank respect the way most communities > > do--completely informally. > > Not trolling. Possibly dense. There is that reference to "we" again, > which is what led me to believe that there was some pooled resource > that was being referenced. We have a sense of community here, along with the usual collaterals of explicit and implicit standards of behavior and discourse. We do, indeed. We don't like straw men or trolls (which I can't help observing are at two rather opposite ends of the materials spectrum, whatever that might signify). Even when we lose our tempers, that doesn't mean we don't still believe in those standards. We are human, after all. Nick ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Rceeberger wrote: > > On 8/17/2009 8:48:30 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Rceeberger >> wrote: >> >> > Your statement reads quite humorously. >> >> That's great! Apparently there is a fine line between humorous and >> rude and sincere. Feel free to give my posts the benefit of the >> doubt... > > Oh, you have received that particular benefit in spades. > Still here, right? Are you implying that you would kill file me if you did not give my posts the benefit of the doubt? I apologize in advance if I have jumped to any unwarranted conclusions. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
> Do you think you're fooling anyone with this schtick? I hope not. It is certainly not my intention to fool anyone. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
On 8/17/2009 8:48:30 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Rceeberger > wrote: > > > Your statement reads quite humorously. > > That's great! Apparently there is a fine line between humorous and > rude and sincere. Feel free to give my posts the benefit of the > doubt... Oh, you have received that particular benefit in spades. Still here, right? xponent Vegas Maru rob ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Rceeberger wrote: > Your statement reads quite humorously. That's great! Apparently there is a fine line between humorous and rude and sincere. Feel free to give my posts the benefit of the doubt... ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
On 8/17/2009 8:04:00 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 5:38 PM, David Hobby wrote: > > > That doesn't really prove anything. For instance, > > a flame war would produce a large number of posts, > > but one could hardly call that communication. > > Of course it does not prove anything, but it is highly suggestive. > While you no doubt have a different idea of "flame war" than I do, it > is obvious that most of the posts in question are communication of > some sort. LOL!! You have no idea what this list has been through over the years. Your statement reads quite humorously. xponent Yrkoon Maru rob ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > And in most cases, the likelyhood of you developing those conditions > is dependent on pre-existing conditions! I have not seen any evidence that suggests this. There are a large number of conditions that can result in a large increase in cost of health care, and many of them are not correlated. Having a heart condition is not likely to lead to prostate cancer, for example. > So it magically constantly decreases costs? No, read it again - the > trend is that it will be 3-5% cheaper than a "PPO" plan. Interesting that you would say that I should read it again. I have read the entire article carefully before I posted it. For example, I read these passages, twice now: | Beyond the first year cost savings with CDH designs, is there | is a continuing favorable effect on cost over a multiple year | timeframe? Traditional actuarial models assume that cost savings from | plan design changes are persistent over time (i.e., the differential | cost of a given benefit remains lower by a similar amount), but the | utilization difference for changes in cost sharing is not assumed to | compound or result in lower trends over time. It has been suggested | that the favorable utilization changes associated with CDH designs | may also create reduced demand for health care services over a | multi-year period and further reduce the ongoing trend when compared | with traditional plan trends. This reduced trend may not be unique | to CDH designs and may be a component of all higher cost-share | designs. However, unlike the first-year result, reduced multi-year | trends have not been established previously as a core actuarial | principle that is applied consistently to all plan designs. | Results for continuing cost-savings experience with CDH designs are | often difficult to interpret, but the studies do seem to indicate that | there may be a favorable effect on ongoing cost trends as well. Some | studies have combined multiple years of results together and indicated | that the overall trend over a two-year period has been less than the | corresponding traditional product trend over the same time period. The | Cigna study specifically identified the trend for the second year of CDH | plan experience and compared it to the corresponding traditional plan | trend. It found that the second-year trend in the CDH plan was nearly | 5 percent lower than the traditional plan trend. The Uniprise study | measured trend savings over a four-year period and suggests that the | trend for the CDH plan is about 3 percent lower per year on average over | the four-year period. | If this favorable trend effect can be further established as significant | (e.g., 3 percent to 4 percent or more per year) and persistent over | a multiyear period, this would be a strong argument for the further | adoption of these plans. There are few other alternatives available | to employers that demonstrate this degree of ongoing savings and trend | reduction. It is possible that the favorable trend effects currently | being observed are merely due to residual riskselection effects or other | factors that may cause this apparent trend to erode or disappear over | time as larger data sets become available. It is also possible that | this apparent trend-dampening feature of higher cost-sharing plans is a | consistent element of all plans (similar to the first-year effect which | has been well-measured), but one that has not been measured historically | because the differences in cost-sharing levels for traditional plans is | relatively small. Also, you seem to have ignored the substantial first-year savings: | the total savings generated could be as much as 12 percent to 20 percent | in the first year. >>Actually, a health insurance market without government interference >>would be a lot more consumer-driven than the current system, which >>is why I mentioned it. In nearly all cases, if there is to be a > > Howso? Competition for consumer business. > You've just empowered the insurance companies to do a lot more > cherrypicking of good customers and to jack rates up for everyone > else. No, I have not "empowered" anyone. I do not control other people. Other people are free to do as they wish without my interference in their lives. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 5:38 PM, David Hobby wrote: > That doesn't really prove anything. For instance, > a flame war would produce a large number of posts, > but one could hardly call that communication. Of course it does not prove anything, but it is highly suggestive. While you no doubt have a different idea of "flame war" than I do, it is obvious that most of the posts in question are communication of some sort. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
On 17 Aug 2009 at 17:06, John Williams wrote: > On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Andrew > Crystall wrote: > > On 17 Aug 2009 at 12:51, John Williams wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Andrew > >> Crystall wrote: > >> > >> No, considering pre-existing conditions is not how health status > >> insurance works. It takes into account the risks of health insurance > >> premiums rising drastically in the future. > > > > Which are based on your pre-existing conditions, right. > > Yes, health insurance premiums are based on pre-existing conditions. > But health STATUS insurance premiums are not (they are based on > likelihood of future chronic costly conditions). And in most cases, the likelyhood of you developing those conditions is dependent on pre-existing conditions! > >> | For savings after the first year, at least two of the studies indicate > > >> >> | trend rates lower than traditional PPO plans by approximately 3 > >> percent> >> | to 5 percent. If these lower trends can be further > >> validated, it will > >> | represent a substantial cost-reduction strategy > >> for employers and > >> | employees. >> 3-5%, when the total health cost overrun compared to other >>countries systems is an order of magnitude higher. Hmm. > > 3 to 5% PER YEAR. It adds up. So it magically constantly decreases costs? No, read it again - the trend is that it will be 3-5% cheaper than a "PPO" plan. >Actually, a health insurance market without government interference >would be a lot more consumer-driven than the current system, which >is why I mentioned it. In nearly all cases, if there is to be a Howso? You've just empowered the insurance companies to do a lot more cherrypicking of good customers and to jack rates up for everyone else. AndrewC ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
John Williams wrote: It is interesting what some people find rude which does not seem rude to others. I suspect that a neutral observer would look at my posts during the last few weeks and judge that they are not at all rude. I have been asking some uncomfortable questions, but not making any obviously rude remarks. John-- This time around, you've been much better. When you started here (late last Fall?) you were much worse. The interesting thing is that the data do not support the claim that my posts make people less likely to communicate here. Rather, just the opposite. If you look at the volume of non-JW posts as a function of JW-posts to this list, there is a remarkably large positive correlation. That doesn't really prove anything. For instance, a flame war would produce a large number of posts, but one could hardly call that communication. ---David ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
Hello all -- I didn't mean to drop out of this, ummm, 'discussion', but I lost the email I intended to respond to over the w/e. What can I say? I turned 61 and had to put a 9 year old cat down due to cancer -- not a good day until Charlie reminded me 61 is a prime number! Cheered me right up. The Engineer (my husband, companion and love of my life for almost 38 years) is working in BFE Utah and staying in Cortez, CO, and only makes it home every third w/e. I try to go there for a week or 10 days every month or six weeks. My life is a little topsy turvey right now. I also don't seem to have copious amounts of free time to respond ad nauseum. Did someone say John's been on this list for 10 years? Did I misread that?? I don't remember being this prodded to respond for many years -- probably since JDG was here =+)). Anyway, John, you said health care was an emotional issue for me. I prefer "passionate". I'm passionate about people having equal access to good care for treatment of disease, equal access to disease prevention and equal access to health promotion. Not just the best care money can buy. And comparing health insurance to car insurance is an apples and oranges thing for me. If your car insurance goes up 5x due to bad choices (DUII, speeding, etc.), you can take a bus, taxi, ride a bike, etc. and no one dies. If your health insurance goes up (or you are unable to even get it) due to a drunk crashing into you at age 18, your life gets very complicated, very quickly. And Charlie is an old and respected member of this list. As is Dan, Alberto, Andy, Julia (where is Julia?), Doug and many, many more. Respect is earned here, as it is in most communities. I don't agree with some of the people that I consider our sages -- frex, I think Dan and I disagree greatly about the value of religion in raising children -- but I still respect his opinions. I guess it comes down to not so much what is said, but how it is said, and I find your tone often arrogant, John. Amities, all. Jo Anne evens...@hevanet.com ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > On 17 Aug 2009 at 12:57, John Williams wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Andrew >> Crystall wrote: >> > On 16 Aug 2009 at 23:18, John Williams wrote: >> > >> >> If the government is going to interfere in the insurance market, it >> >> seems to me that it would be simpler just to directly subsidize those >> >> who cannot afford to pay health insurance premiums, and leave the >> >> insurance market to function rationally. >> > >> > That is extremely expensive, for all it's "simpler". >> >> Actually, studies have shown that consumer driven health care reduces >> costs, and does not decrease preventative care. > > Except you're not proposing "consumer driven health care", you > propising that the government pick up an lot of expensive healthcare > costs. More, it doesn't create incentives to increase prevenative > care either. Actually, a health insurance market without government interference would be a lot more consumer-driven than the current system, which is why I mentioned it. In nearly all cases, if there is to be a government-redistribution of wealth program, people are better served if the government does not prevent them from making agreements with each other, but rather simply subsidizes those who need it (or manage to persuade politicians that they need it). > >> | For savings after the first year, at least two of the studies indicate >> | trend rates lower than traditional PPO plans by approximately 3 percent >> | to 5 percent. If these lower trends can be further validated, it will >> | represent a substantial cost-reduction strategy for employers and >> | employees. > > 3-5%, when the total health cost overrun compared to other countries > systems is an order of magnitude higher. Hmm. 3 to 5% PER YEAR. It adds up. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > On 17 Aug 2009 at 12:51, John Williams wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Andrew >> Crystall wrote: >> >> No, considering pre-existing conditions is not how health status >> insurance works. It takes into account the risks of health insurance >> premiums rising drastically in the future. > > Which are based on your pre-existing conditions, right. Yes, health insurance premiums are based on pre-existing conditions. But health STATUS insurance premiums are not (they are based on likelihood of future chronic costly conditions). ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
On 17 Aug 2009 at 12:57, John Williams wrote: > On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Andrew > Crystall wrote: > > On 16 Aug 2009 at 23:18, John Williams wrote: > > > >> If the government is going to interfere in the insurance market, it > >> seems to me that it would be simpler just to directly subsidize those > >> who cannot afford to pay health insurance premiums, and leave the > >> insurance market to function rationally. > > > > That is extremely expensive, for all it's "simpler". > > Actually, studies have shown that consumer driven health care reduces > costs, and does not decrease preventative care. Except you're not proposing "consumer driven health care", you propising that the government pick up an lot of expensive healthcare costs. More, it doesn't create incentives to increase prevenative care either. > | For savings after the first year, at least two of the studies indicate > | trend rates lower than traditional PPO plans by approximately 3 percent > | to 5 percent. If these lower trends can be further validated, it will > | represent a substantial cost-reduction strategy for employers and > | employees. 3-5%, when the total health cost overrun compared to other countries systems is an order of magnitude higher. Hmm. AndrewC ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
On 17 Aug 2009 at 12:51, John Williams wrote: > On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Andrew > Crystall wrote: > > > Of course that's how it works. It's in the interest of insurance > > companies not to pay out. Your shilling for corperations is amusing, > > but not based in reality: insurance allways takes into account risks. > > No, considering pre-existing conditions is not how health status > insurance works. It takes into account the risks of health insurance > premiums rising drastically in the future. Which are based on your pre-existing conditions, right. Either insurance companies are idiots, or they're out there to make money. Hmm. AndrewC ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:11 AM, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: > > > > Original Message: > - > From: John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com > Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 23:21:45 -0700 > To: brin-l@mccmedia.com > Subject: Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care > > > >>Another good reason for heath status insurance By the way, you lost the context of the discussion with your snipping there. That is not a complete sentence, and even if you included the complete sentence, you need to read a couple previous posts to realize that the matter being discussed there was why there might be a demand for health status insurance but not auto status insurance. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > On 16 Aug 2009 at 23:18, John Williams wrote: > >> If the government is going to interfere in the insurance market, it >> seems to me that it would be simpler just to directly subsidize those >> who cannot afford to pay health insurance premiums, and leave the >> insurance market to function rationally. > > That is extremely expensive, for all it's "simpler". Actually, studies have shown that consumer driven health care reduces costs, and does not decrease preventative care. http://www.actuary.org/pdf/health/cdhp_may09.pdf | With regard to first-year cost savings, all studies showed a favorable | effect on cost in the first year of a CDH plan. CDH plan trends ranged | from -4 percent to -15 percent. Coupled with a control population on | traditional plans that experienced trends of +8 percent to +9 percent, | the total savings generated could be as much as 12 percent to 20 percent | in the first year. All studies used some variation of normalization or | control groups to account for selection bias. | For savings after the first year, at least two of the studies indicate | trend rates lower than traditional PPO plans by approximately 3 percent | to 5 percent. If these lower trends can be further validated, it will | represent a substantial cost-reduction strategy for employers and | employees. | Generally, all of the studies indicated that cost savings did not | result from avoidance of appropriate care and that necessary care | was received in equal or greater degrees relative to traditional | plans. All of the studies reviewed reported a significant increase in | preventive services for CDH participants. Three of the studies found | that CDH plan participants received recommended care for chronic | conditions at the same or higher level than traditional (non-CDH) plan | participants. Two studies reported a higher incidence of physicians | following evidence-based care protocols. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Dave Land wrote: > On 16 Aug 2009 at 23:18, John Williams wrote: > >> If the government is going to interfere in the insurance market, > > You call it interference, I call it participation. I'd agree with forced participation. Here's an example of government forced "participation": http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=96009&catid=2 | But this trip has been frustrating. There just aren't enough volunteers | to help all the people who need it, because of California state law. | "We tried to get a waiver to bring in good ol' East Tennessee boys and | girls to fix teeth, do eyes, but unfortunately, except in Tennessee, the | rest of the country won't allow practitoners of medicine from one state | to cross over and help in another state," said Brock. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > Of course that's how it works. It's in the interest of insurance > companies not to pay out. Your shilling for corperations is amusing, > but not based in reality: insurance allways takes into account risks. No, considering pre-existing conditions is not how health status insurance works. It takes into account the risks of health insurance premiums rising drastically in the future. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:11 AM, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: > There is a reason why there isn't affordable long term insurance. Yes, government interference and people who would rather spend other people's money for their own insurance. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
It is interesting what some people find rude which does not seem rude to others. I suspect that a neutral observer would look at my posts during the last few weeks and judge that they are not at all rude. I have been asking some uncomfortable questions, but not making any obviously rude remarks. The interesting thing is that the data do not support the claim that my posts make people less likely to communicate here. Rather, just the opposite. If you look at the volume of non-JW posts as a function of JW-posts to this list, there is a remarkably large positive correlation. Anyone listen to Bill Maher? I disagree with a lot of what he says, but he is entertaining. He speaks his mind, and is not afraid to discuss uncomfortable issues. I have never found him rude, but I suspect others may have a different opinion. To each his own. Here's an example of an uncomfortable issue that he discusses: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/new-rule-smart-president_b_253996.html ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
On 16 Aug 2009 at 23:18, John Williams wrote: If the government is going to interfere in the insurance market, You call it interference, I call it participation. Well, at least you don't try to hide your bias. Dave ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
On 16 Aug 2009 at 23:03, John Williams wrote: > On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Andrew > Crystall wrote: > > > Either it will have a higher premium to cover pre-existing > > conditions, or it only covers things not caused by the pre-existing > > condition. > > That is not how health status insurance works. It is insurance against > an increase in health insurance premiums. Of course that's how it works. It's in the interest of insurance companies not to pay out. Your shilling for corperations is amusing, but not based in reality: insurance allways takes into account risks. AndrewC ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
On 16 Aug 2009 at 23:18, John Williams wrote: > If the government is going to interfere in the insurance market, it > seems to me that it would be simpler just to directly subsidize those > who cannot afford to pay health insurance premiums, and leave the > insurance market to function rationally. That is extremely expensive, for all it's "simpler". Again, paying from a pool on risk assessment encourages insurance companies to invest heavily in preventative care rather than the more expensive critical care for many conditions, which the government simply paying out vast sums in insurance for sick people doesn't provide. (More, the government has to set limits somewhere if it is directly subsidising insurance...) AndrewC ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
On 18/08/2009, at 12:11 AM, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: What you are searching for is akin to trying to find an even prime number. It's really easy to find one... ...but then you go looking for another... Charlie. But There's One, So There Must Be Another Eventually Maru ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
Original Message: - From: John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 23:21:45 -0700 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care >Another good reason for heath status insurance John, you realize what you are arguing, don't you. If the number a is too big, then do a bit of algebra and obtain a =b*(1+c). Pay b and c. Guess what, with this type of algebra, nothing is gained. Now, there will always be niche markets for things like health status insuranceespecially when health insurance tends to be year by year. So, someone in their 20s could pay extra to be in a big pool when they are 50. But, the only reason that young folks can pay health insurance costs is that they don't have families and are in the low risk pool. So, they postpone the inevitable. There is a reason why there isn't affordable long term insurance. It's in the algebra. What you are searching for is akin to trying to find an even prime number. Dan M. mail2web.com What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
Doug Pensinger wrote (in html, and it's a hell to reformat): > >> I do occasionally blow up. Once when I was accused of racism, >> once when a private discussion I'd had with someone was forwarded >> to the list, and ISTR Nick and I talking completely at >> cross-purposes. I was really annoyed on Friday night, >> partly 'cause I'd got home after drinking with a couple >> of friends in the pub, and an acquaintance of one of them >> was spouting anti-vaccination lunacy. And when I asked a >> couple of simple questions, I received the reply "Oh, so >> you're science. That figures." > > There's no arguing with simpletons like that. And we seem to > have more nut cases than ever before. Birthers??? Ay Yi Yi. > If you think things can't get worse... On another list, when those Muhammad cartoons appeared, all the list was mocking Islam and preaching freedom of speech, and that was the opportunity for one listmember to get out of the closet and confess being a Holocaust denier. I still don't know if he was sincere, or if we was just testing how "free speech rulez" we were. Alberto Monteiro PS: just because we believe in free speech doesn't mean we have to feed the trolls... ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 8:02 PM, John Williams wrote: > So, you consider his post to me thoughtful, constructive, and worthy of > respect? Yes. Martin ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
