Health insurance companies have no interest in operating across state-lines. They don't participate because most health insurance bases itself in local networks. In most cases, It would be like buying a hunting license for a state you never intend to visit. It would be just as beneficial to throw the money out your car window driving down the interstate.
As someone who has worked in health-law think tank, I can tell you from first hand experience this is not only false, but the opposite of true. Health insurance companies are dying to operate across state lines, and their political contributions back up the claim. Its one of their top lobbying priorities.
They've been able to do it for years in a handful of states, why aren't they?? The ACA already allowed insurance companies to enage in a similar practice. Moreover, six states have explicitly enacted laws to encourage this, and not a single one of them attracted a new insurer to the market:
They may say they WANT to do so to the high heavens, but when push comes to shove, they have no interest in actually setting up the logistics and infrastructure to make it happen. Because it would cost them too much money. My guess is they'll only ACTUALLY follw through if we give them another couple of billion dollars in tax breaks as ransom. Then they might think about getting started. Maybe.
Insurance-provided care in the US is all based on local networks. And evidence (thus far) shows us that the comapnies themselves aren't willing to pony up the dough to change that, despite a golden opportunity in over 10% of the country.
If someone lives in a state of worry that ICE may come knocking on their door at any moment, why hasn't that person done what they need to do so that that doesn't occur? No, I know it isn't the old Ellis Island days where you stood in line, someone asked you a few questions, Americanized your name, and told you "come on in" but a modicum of effort can prevent that dreaded *knock* *knock* on the door.
I don't understand what you're suggesting here.
The suggestion was made that some people live in fear of ICE knocking on their door, coming to deport them. Given ICE's recent track record of raiding convenience stores and big box home improvement locations it is only a matter of time before they track people down individually. Rather than living with that constant fear the person in question should begin the process of naturalization. Yes, it might take a while before it actually happens but at least that would probably keep ICE off their back.
The people who like to flaunt their undocumented status are stupid for remaining so. Does anyone else go around being proud of failing to comply with the law? "Hey guys, look at me--I didn't file my taxes last year! woot! woot!" "Dude! I haven't gotten my car registered in five years! Awesome!" "I made $20 million last year because I had inside information on our company's stock futures!" No one does this...except some of these folks.
A truly undocumented person *should* live in fear, though. If you don't exist from a legal point of view then the police could arrest you, throw you in a jail cell, then innocently claim "we don't have anyone here by that name--never heard of them. See? No records of a person by that name being booked into this unit. Wish we could be of more help." If you think this can't ever happen then you must have missed the news story a couple years ago where Chicago had an "off-site" detention center which was not connected to their main jail--they could hold you without you showing up in the system.
As someone who has worked in health-law think tank, I can tell you from first hand experience this is not only false, but the opposite of true. Health insurance companies are dying to operate across state lines, and their political contributions back up the claim. Its one of their top lobbying priorities.
I can second this. I worked as an actuarial analyst for Blue Cross Blue Shield of TX for a while and in some meetings the idea of being able to operate across States lines was something the company wished it could do, rather than having to operate as multiple yet separate entities.
*************
It is always cute when people think "roads" as if that is the excuse to allow all sorts of collectivism. The only roads which are Federal are the Interstate Highways; all other roads are State, county, or city (those levels of government do get some money from the Federal Government for transportation purposes, though). That is why gasoline taxes, sales taxes, and other associated non-Federal exist--the very act of conducting economic business is your individual contribution to those pots.
Incidentally, have you seen the condition of many roads lately? The money supposedly earmarked for roads doesn't seem as if it is being spent on roads.
In that earlier example, Fred needs to mind his own business and quit worrying about how much more Bill makes than he does. Also, if Millie's children or grandchildren really cared about her they would let her move in with them so she doesn't have to worry about *anything*--like families *used* to do.
edit/add: what's with the revolving door at various Federal agencies these days? CDC director Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald just resigned, ostensibly over her ownership of stock in tobacco companies.
Why would Fred mind his own business in my scenario?? Bill's fleet of heavier cars would clearly be getting more use out of the road and causing more damage. Also, Millie would have to leave the home she has been independent in for 50+ years?? This sounds like nothing more than might makes right and social Darwinism.
Moreover, arguments around libertarian principles will constantly bring you around to the word "logic", and logical solutions. The problem is this logic seems to exist in the 1950s myth of America that never really existed. The ideas are sound,and practical. But there doesn't seem to be much thought beyond the solution, when the far more important factor is how a person/persons are supposed to make the solution occur. No thought seems to go into the fact that those solutions require 1.) money 2.) time and 3.) emotional investment. Any or all of which may not be available.
So yes, it is logical enough that Millie can live with her son. But he has a wife and two kids (5 & 7). Now consider my factors. They may not be able to afford renovating the downstairs bedroom and basement (money), may not be able to find any opening to donso between work and school events (time),or simply can't handle the stress of relocating a 90-year old woman after a half century living in one place (emotional investment).
I guess when Millie has a small accident in her home her family can find her remains when they come to check on her. Presumably they do on a daily basis but you never know.
Fred can live his life consumed by jealousy if that is his wish. That is probably why Bill is doing better than he is.
**********
Some daily FEMA operations are ending in Puerto Rico. Of course, some areas are *still* without consistent power--this wouldn't be happening if Puerto Rico were a State....
I guess when Millie has a small accident in her home her family can find her remains when they come to check on her. Presumably they do on a daily basis but you never know.
Fred can live his life consumed by jealousy if that is his wish. That is probably why Bill is doing better than he is.
**********
Some daily FEMA operations are ending in Puerto Rico. Of course, some areas are *still* without consistent power--this wouldn't be happening if Puerto Rico were a State....
But it has nothing to do with jealousy. Bill's 4 larger vehicles are simply responsible for at least 3x as much wear and tear on the neighborhood street as Fred's single 4-door sedan.
Health insurance companies have no interest in operating across state-lines. They don't participate because most health insurance bases itself in local networks. In most cases, It would be like buying a hunting license for a state you never intend to visit. It would be just as beneficial to throw the money out your car window driving down the interstate.
As someone who has worked in health-law think tank, I can tell you from first hand experience this is not only false, but the opposite of true. Health insurance companies are dying to operate across state lines, and their political contributions back up the claim. Its one of their top lobbying priorities.
They've been able to do it for years in a handful of states, why aren't they?? The ACA already allowed insurance companies to enage in a similar practice. Moreover, six states have explicitly enacted laws to encourage this, and not a single one of them attracted a new insurer to the market:
They may say they WANT to do so to the high heavens, but when push comes to shove, they have no interest in actually setting up the logistics and infrastructure to make it happen. Because it would cost them too much money. My guess is they'll only ACTUALLY follw through if we give them another couple of billion dollars in tax breaks as ransom. Then they might think about getting started. Maybe.
Insurance-provided care in the US is all based on local networks. And evidence (thus far) shows us that the comapnies themselves aren't willing to pony up the dough to change that, despite a golden opportunity in over 10% of the country.
@jjstraka34 because only six states have allowed the purchase of out of state insurance due to the McClaren-Ferguson Act, which exempted the business of insurance from antitrust law and divided regulation between the states. This means that there is a huge difference between the type of insurance you can purchase across state lines, since each has their own regulatory plan when it comes to insurance. The myth is that it is "illegal" to purchase insurance across state lines. The truth is that it is legal... just virtually impossible
There have been six states that have allowed the purchase of out of state insurance, but they all matched that with strict regulations on what that insurance must cover. The issue is that the McClaren-Ferguson Act essentially allowed states to create their own odious licensing requirements that severely hindered out of state insurance holders.
This is why there is a federal plan to ensure cooperation between the states, so that the individual states don't jealously guard their authority to regulate insurance within their borders.
Now here is the inside scoop: The reason why AHIP doesn't support the proposals to ease the purchase of insurance across state lines isn't because they don't want to sell insurance across state lines... its because they fear that the ability to do so will be coupled with the loss of their antitrust exemptions. Like all industry/union/manufacturing associations they are weighing the overall effects on their bottom line, and they see the loss of their McClaren-Ferguson exemption as not worth the trade off.
Also: the states where it is legal: Kentucky, Maine, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Georgia, and most recently Wyoming... sure "10% of the country" as you say, if you count by number of states. Yet that's completely misleading when you account for the number of potential insurance purchasers, which is all that insurance companies care about.
It's not just a question of your own use of roads, but the wider benefit you get. For instance you might run a day nursery from your home with all the traffic that entails or get regular shopping deliveries by large vans causing far more wear & tear than the neighbor's SUV. Then there's ancillary services like drainage and street-lighting to consider ...
It's not just a question of your own use of roads, but the wider benefit you get. For instance you might run a day nursery from your home with all the traffic that entails or get regular shopping deliveries by large vans causing far more wear & tear than the neighbor's SUV. Then there's ancillary services like drainage and street-lighting to consider ...
@Grond0 Yes, it is true that almost everyone benefits from roads. But not everyone benefits equally.
This is why tolls are still the best form of financing for the building and upkeep of public roads. The increase in toll cost to delivery vans will be in part passed on to the consumers of delivery services. Thus, the cost of the public good is still born by those who burden it most. Even if we must have a public good, having a market-oriented payment method is still beneficial.
Health insurance companies have no interest in operating across state-lines. They don't participate because most health insurance bases itself in local networks. In most cases, It would be like buying a hunting license for a state you never intend to visit. It would be just as beneficial to throw the money out your car window driving down the interstate.
As someone who has worked in health-law think tank, I can tell you from first hand experience this is not only false, but the opposite of true. Health insurance companies are dying to operate across state lines, and their political contributions back up the claim. Its one of their top lobbying priorities.
They've been able to do it for years in a handful of states, why aren't they?? The ACA already allowed insurance companies to enage in a similar practice. Moreover, six states have explicitly enacted laws to encourage this, and not a single one of them attracted a new insurer to the market:
They may say they WANT to do so to the high heavens, but when push comes to shove, they have no interest in actually setting up the logistics and infrastructure to make it happen. Because it would cost them too much money. My guess is they'll only ACTUALLY follw through if we give them another couple of billion dollars in tax breaks as ransom. Then they might think about getting started. Maybe.
Insurance-provided care in the US is all based on local networks. And evidence (thus far) shows us that the comapnies themselves aren't willing to pony up the dough to change that, despite a golden opportunity in over 10% of the country.
@jjstraka34 because only six states have allowed the purchase of out of state insurance due to the McClaren-Ferguson Act, which exempted the business of insurance from antitrust law and divided regulation between the states. This means that there is a huge difference between the type of insurance you can purchase across state lines, since each has their own regulatory plan when it comes to insurance. The myth is that it is "illegal" to purchase insurance across state lines. The truth is that it is legal... just virtually impossible
There have been six states that have allowed the purchase of out of state insurance, but they all matched that with strict regulations on what that insurance must cover. The issue is that the McClaren-Ferguson Act essentially allowed states to create their own odious licensing requirements that severely hindered out of state insurance holders.
This is why there is a federal plan to ensure cooperation between the states, so that the individual states don't jealously guard their authority to regulate insurance within their borders.
Now here is the inside scoop: The reason why AHIP doesn't support the proposals to ease the purchase of insurance across state lines isn't because they don't want to sell insurance across state lines... its because they fear that the ability to do so will be coupled with the loss of their antitrust exemptions. Like all industry/union/manufacturing associations they are weighing the overall effects on their bottom line, and they see the loss of their McClaren-Ferguson exemption as not worth the trade off.
So not much here I didn't already suspect. Like most corporations in America they want to socialize the risk (by making sure the government protects their anti-trust exemption) and privatize the profit. As for what the insurance must cover, of course that would be the reason. They want to offer plans that are nearly worthless in catastrophic situations while charging nearly (if not exactly) the same price for them.
Again, they won't do what they say they want to until they receive their pound of flesh. I'm told capitalism is about risk and reward. They seem to have no interest in taking any risk, and only want a guaranteed return on their investment, with no possibility of failure. Where is the entrepreneurial spirit of the health insurance executives?? Surely these titans of capitlaism can find a way to make it work.
I cannot both select both "insightful" and "agree" with @booinyoureyes so I had to choose one.
Bill's volume of traffic is irrelevant--he gets to use the street, has the right to own whatever vehicles he wishes to own, and he can be as much of a jerk as he wishes to be. This is why we call it "freedom" and I would rather have that situation than its opposite.
Pfizer is stating that it is in the process of recognizing an $11 billion gain because of the recent tax reform package. That is a lot of money, even for a corporation that size.
Incidentally, the next time anyone thinks "the United States is not a free country" remember that at least here people are not being arrested for stating an opinion online. At least here I can criticize Trump when he does something stupid--like his decision to keep open the prison at Guantánamo Bay--without worrying that someone is going to come looking for me.
Roads are just the most obvious example of the benefits of collective spending, the example most people would support. The military, the police, and scientific and medical research are other good examples of relatively non-controversial sources of spending. Controversial examples would include a single-payer health care system or a wall on the southern border--both involve collective spending for the collective good.
There are some things the free market is not going to do because it's not profitable for a corporation to do them. Of those things, some are too expensive to be undertaken by non-profits. Of those things, some are too important for the individual or the nation to go without.
When non-government entities aren't solving a problem, the government is the only one left.
Health insurance companies have no interest in operating across state-lines. They don't participate because most health insurance bases itself in local networks. In most cases, It would be like buying a hunting license for a state you never intend to visit. It would be just as beneficial to throw the money out your car window driving down the interstate.
As someone who has worked in health-law think tank, I can tell you from first hand experience this is not only false, but the opposite of true. Health insurance companies are dying to operate across state lines, and their political contributions back up the claim. Its one of their top lobbying priorities.
They've been able to do it for years in a handful of states, why aren't they?? The ACA already allowed insurance companies to enage in a similar practice. Moreover, six states have explicitly enacted laws to encourage this, and not a single one of them attracted a new insurer to the market:
They may say they WANT to do so to the high heavens, but when push comes to shove, they have no interest in actually setting up the logistics and infrastructure to make it happen. Because it would cost them too much money. My guess is they'll only ACTUALLY follw through if we give them another couple of billion dollars in tax breaks as ransom. Then they might think about getting started. Maybe.
Insurance-provided care in the US is all based on local networks. And evidence (thus far) shows us that the comapnies themselves aren't willing to pony up the dough to change that, despite a golden opportunity in over 10% of the country.
@jjstraka34 because only six states have allowed the purchase of out of state insurance due to the McClaren-Ferguson Act, which exempted the business of insurance from antitrust law and divided regulation between the states. This means that there is a huge difference between the type of insurance you can purchase across state lines, since each has their own regulatory plan when it comes to insurance. The myth is that it is "illegal" to purchase insurance across state lines. The truth is that it is legal... just virtually impossible
There have been six states that have allowed the purchase of out of state insurance, but they all matched that with strict regulations on what that insurance must cover. The issue is that the McClaren-Ferguson Act essentially allowed states to create their own odious licensing requirements that severely hindered out of state insurance holders.
This is why there is a federal plan to ensure cooperation between the states, so that the individual states don't jealously guard their authority to regulate insurance within their borders.
Now here is the inside scoop: The reason why AHIP doesn't support the proposals to ease the purchase of insurance across state lines isn't because they don't want to sell insurance across state lines... its because they fear that the ability to do so will be coupled with the loss of their antitrust exemptions. Like all industry/union/manufacturing associations they are weighing the overall effects on their bottom line, and they see the loss of their McClaren-Ferguson exemption as not worth the trade off.
So not much here I didn't already suspect. Like most corporations in America they want to socialize the risk (by making sure the government protects their anti-trust exemption) and privatize the profit. As for what the insurance must cover, of course that would be the reason. They want to offer plans that are nearly worthless in catastrophic situations while charging nearly (if not exactly) the same price for them.
Again, they won't do what they say they want to until they receive their pound of flesh. I'm told capitalism is about risk and reward. They seem to have no interest in taking any risk, and only want a guaranteed return on their investment, with no possibility of failure.
No kidding, no established business wants a free market. If you're currently on top of the game, of course you're scared of competition.
The conclusion you draw from that is baffling though. If anything, this should make you want to promote competition (as opening up out-of-state purchase of insurance would do). The benefits of competitive markets aren't for the competitors, they are for the consumers.
Health insurance companies have no interest in operating across state-lines. They don't participate because most health insurance bases itself in local networks. In most cases, It would be like buying a hunting license for a state you never intend to visit. It would be just as beneficial to throw the money out your car window driving down the interstate.
As someone who has worked in health-law think tank, I can tell you from first hand experience this is not only false, but the opposite of true. Health insurance companies are dying to operate across state lines, and their political contributions back up the claim. Its one of their top lobbying priorities.
They've been able to do it for years in a handful of states, why aren't they?? The ACA already allowed insurance companies to enage in a similar practice. Moreover, six states have explicitly enacted laws to encourage this, and not a single one of them attracted a new insurer to the market:
They may say they WANT to do so to the high heavens, but when push comes to shove, they have no interest in actually setting up the logistics and infrastructure to make it happen. Because it would cost them too much money. My guess is they'll only ACTUALLY follw through if we give them another couple of billion dollars in tax breaks as ransom. Then they might think about getting started. Maybe.
Insurance-provided care in the US is all based on local networks. And evidence (thus far) shows us that the comapnies themselves aren't willing to pony up the dough to change that, despite a golden opportunity in over 10% of the country.
@jjstraka34 because only six states have allowed the purchase of out of state insurance due to the McClaren-Ferguson Act, which exempted the business of insurance from antitrust law and divided regulation between the states. This means that there is a huge difference between the type of insurance you can purchase across state lines, since each has their own regulatory plan when it comes to insurance. The myth is that it is "illegal" to purchase insurance across state lines. The truth is that it is legal... just virtually impossible
There have been six states that have allowed the purchase of out of state insurance, but they all matched that with strict regulations on what that insurance must cover. The issue is that the McClaren-Ferguson Act essentially allowed states to create their own odious licensing requirements that severely hindered out of state insurance holders.
This is why there is a federal plan to ensure cooperation between the states, so that the individual states don't jealously guard their authority to regulate insurance within their borders.
Now here is the inside scoop: The reason why AHIP doesn't support the proposals to ease the purchase of insurance across state lines isn't because they don't want to sell insurance across state lines... its because they fear that the ability to do so will be coupled with the loss of their antitrust exemptions. Like all industry/union/manufacturing associations they are weighing the overall effects on their bottom line, and they see the loss of their McClaren-Ferguson exemption as not worth the trade off.
So not much here I didn't already suspect. Like most corporations in America they want to socialize the risk (by making sure the government protects their anti-trust exemption) and privatize the profit. As for what the insurance must cover, of course that would be the reason. They want to offer plans that are nearly worthless in catastrophic situations while charging nearly (if not exactly) the same price for them.
Again, they won't do what they say they want to until they receive their pound of flesh. I'm told capitalism is about risk and reward. They seem to have no interest in taking any risk, and only want a guaranteed return on their investment, with no possibility of failure.
No kidding, no established business wants a free market. If you're currently on top of the game, of course you're scared of competition.
The conclusion you draw from that is baffling though. If anything, this should make you want to promote competition (as opening up out-of-state purchase of insurance would do). The benefits of competitive markets aren't for the competitors, they are for the consumers.
Evidenced by the fact that every major telcom company (specifically Comcast and AT&T) raised their prices for 2018 despite the repeal of net neutrality and their tax cut. Unless it's eggs, milk, or gas, your cost for ANYTHING is going nowhere but up. And no billion dollar giveaways or repeal of "burdensome" regulations is ever going to change that dynamic. Cable companies have massive competition in the form of streaming. In scenario have they lowered prices. This despite the built-in advantage of controlling the broadband price needed to access streaming.
@booinyoureyes "This is why tolls are still the best form of financing for the building and upkeep of public roads." What about the people who have an hour+ commute to work because they can find nothing closer, and regularly have to choose between paying rent this month, or eating for the next 2 weeks? A toll could easily ruin what little income they get. I have personally worked with people like this. Having a blanket requirement for people to maintain something privately only works when income and standard of living is equivalent, or near equivalent for everyone.
@booinyoureyes "This is why tolls are still the best form of financing for the building and upkeep of public roads." What about the people who have an hour+ commute to work because they can find nothing closer, and regularly have to choose between paying rent this month, or eating for the next 2 weeks? A toll could easily ruin what little income they get. I have personally worked with people like this. Having a blanket requirement for people to maintain something privately only works when income and standard of living is equivalent, or near equivalent for everyone.
The same reason a flat-tax, or national sales tax meant to replace the income tax would never work. It sounds great as a slogan, in reality it would be a disaster. Because it would cause the spending power of those on the lower-end of the economic ladder to fall off a cliff. They would be able to buy less, reducing demand, reducing jobs, further reducing the need for demand.......
Health insurance companies have no interest in operating across state-lines. They don't participate because most health insurance bases itself in local networks. In most cases, It would be like buying a hunting license for a state you never intend to visit. It would be just as beneficial to throw the money out your car window driving down the interstate.
As someone who has worked in health-law think tank, I can tell you from first hand experience this is not only false, but the opposite of true. Health insurance companies are dying to operate across state lines, and their political contributions back up the claim. Its one of their top lobbying priorities.
They've been able to do it for years in a handful of states, why aren't they?? The ACA already allowed insurance companies to enage in a similar practice. Moreover, six states have explicitly enacted laws to encourage this, and not a single one of them attracted a new insurer to the market:
They may say they WANT to do so to the high heavens, but when push comes to shove, they have no interest in actually setting up the logistics and infrastructure to make it happen. Because it would cost them too much money. My guess is they'll only ACTUALLY follw through if we give them another couple of billion dollars in tax breaks as ransom. Then they might think about getting started. Maybe.
Insurance-provided care in the US is all based on local networks. And evidence (thus far) shows us that the comapnies themselves aren't willing to pony up the dough to change that, despite a golden opportunity in over 10% of the country.
@jjstraka34 because only six states have allowed the purchase of out of state insurance due to the McClaren-Ferguson Act, which exempted the business of insurance from antitrust law and divided regulation between the states. This means that there is a huge difference between the type of insurance you can purchase across state lines, since each has their own regulatory plan when it comes to insurance. The myth is that it is "illegal" to purchase insurance across state lines. The truth is that it is legal... just virtually impossible
There have been six states that have allowed the purchase of out of state insurance, but they all matched that with strict regulations on what that insurance must cover. The issue is that the McClaren-Ferguson Act essentially allowed states to create their own odious licensing requirements that severely hindered out of state insurance holders.
This is why there is a federal plan to ensure cooperation between the states, so that the individual states don't jealously guard their authority to regulate insurance within their borders.
Now here is the inside scoop: The reason why AHIP doesn't support the proposals to ease the purchase of insurance across state lines isn't because they don't want to sell insurance across state lines... its because they fear that the ability to do so will be coupled with the loss of their antitrust exemptions. Like all industry/union/manufacturing associations they are weighing the overall effects on their bottom line, and they see the loss of their McClaren-Ferguson exemption as not worth the trade off.
So not much here I didn't already suspect. Like most corporations in America they want to socialize the risk (by making sure the government protects their anti-trust exemption) and privatize the profit. As for what the insurance must cover, of course that would be the reason. They want to offer plans that are nearly worthless in catastrophic situations while charging nearly (if not exactly) the same price for them.
Again, they won't do what they say they want to until they receive their pound of flesh. I'm told capitalism is about risk and reward. They seem to have no interest in taking any risk, and only want a guaranteed return on their investment, with no possibility of failure. Where is the entrepreneurial spirit of the health insurance executives?? Surely these titans of capitlaism can find a way to make it work.
Insurance is a huge scam in my humble opinion. Do you think they could charge what they do for healthcare or drugs if it wasn't for insurance companies? The healthcare and pharma companies would go out of business if people had to pay for their own prescriptions, hospital stays, etc... What sounds really good on paper becomes a huge money stealing system on the macro scale.
@booinyoureyes "This is why tolls are still the best form of financing for the building and upkeep of public roads." What about the people who have an hour+ commute to work because they can find nothing closer, and regularly have to choose between paying rent this month, or eating for the next 2 weeks? A toll could easily ruin what little income they get. I have personally worked with people like this. Having a blanket requirement for people to maintain something privately only works when income and standard of living is equivalent, or near equivalent for everyone.
The same reason a flat-tax, or national sales tax meant to replace the income tax would never work. It sounds great as a slogan, in reality it would be a disaster. Because it would cause the spending power of those on the lower-end of the economic ladder to fall off a cliff. They would be able to buy less, reducing demand, reducing jobs, further reducing the need for demand.......
How so? 10% of the cost of a Ferrari is a Hell of a lot more than 10% of some beater Ford Focus. 10% of a yacht is more than 10% of a used canoe. If you exempt food and clothing, which is already done in some states (Michigan doesn't collect sales tax on food for example), I don't see a problem with a flat tax.
I don't think tolls are a good idea for paying for roads. Toll booths do horrible things to traffic and are a huge pain to deal with (you have to bring every single person on the road to a complete stop every time they cross it). On top of that, it costs extra money to build the booths and maintain them, and even add the cost of an attendant if they're completely automated.
I don't think tolls are a good idea for paying for roads. Toll booths do horrible things to traffic and are a huge pain to deal with (you have to bring every single person on the road to a complete stop every time they cross it). On top of that, it costs extra money to build the booths and maintain them, and even add the cost of an attendant if they're completely automated.
Mark my words, any so-called GOP infrastructure bill will come loaded with privatization of highways and bridges.
@Balrog99 The person who can already barely afford the, uh, ford will feel the sting of that 10% much more than the kind of person that can afford a ferrari in the first place.
I don't think tolls are a good idea for paying for roads. Toll booths do horrible things to traffic and are a huge pain to deal with (you have to bring every single person on the road to a complete stop every time they cross it). On top of that, it costs extra money to build the booths and maintain them, and even add the cost of an attendant if they're completely automated.
Well, technology could alleviate most of those problems. A chip in the license plate or some kind of scanner or camera could make tolls quicker, at a cost in privacy (but what else is new these days?).
If someone lives in a state of worry that ICE may come knocking on their door at any moment, why hasn't that person done what they need to do so that that doesn't occur? No, I know it isn't the old Ellis Island days where you stood in line, someone asked you a few questions, Americanized your name, and told you "come on in" but a modicum of effort can prevent that dreaded *knock* *knock* on the door.
I don't understand what you're suggesting here.
The suggestion was made that some people live in fear of ICE knocking on their door, coming to deport them. Given ICE's recent track record of raiding convenience stores and big box home improvement locations it is only a matter of time before they track people down individually. Rather than living with that constant fear the person in question should begin the process of naturalization. Yes, it might take a while before it actually happens but at least that would probably keep ICE off their back.
The people who like to flaunt their undocumented status are stupid for remaining so. Does anyone else go around being proud of failing to comply with the law? "Hey guys, look at me--I didn't file my taxes last year! woot! woot!" "Dude! I haven't gotten my car registered in five years! Awesome!" "I made $20 million last year because I had inside information on our company's stock futures!" No one does this...except some of these folks.
A truly undocumented person *should* live in fear, though. If you don't exist from a legal point of view then the police could arrest you, throw you in a jail cell, then innocently claim "we don't have anyone here by that name--never heard of them. See? No records of a person by that name being booked into this unit. Wish we could be of more help." If you think this can't ever happen then you must have missed the news story a couple years ago where Chicago had an "off-site" detention center which was not connected to their main jail--they could hold you without you showing up in the system.
The heart of this matter is the phrase "begin the process of naturalization." You have to have a green card to start that process, and most undocumented immigrants are not eligible for green cards.
People aren't choosing to remain undocumented because they think it's cool and edgy or something. Establishing an accessible naturalization process -- even one that is expensive and takes a long time -- is one of the primary goals of mainstream immigration activists.
@Balrog99 The person who can already barely afford the, uh, ford will feel the sting of that 10% much more than the kind of person that can afford a ferrari in the first place.
In your opinion. How could you possibly know that? If it was George Soros or Bill Gates yeah, sure, but someone in the upper middle class level could buy a Ferrari at the same sacrifice level as the Focus dude. Of course Bill or George may decide on a Rolls Royce instead and pay even more. They're also likely to own more than one car which means they'll pay even more. They might even spend more money collecting rare cars. Wait, that's even more money they're chipping in! The only rich folks that will make out are the ones that sit on their money. Guess what? Since we have an INCOME tax, those folks would pay next to nothing right now anyway!
If someone lives in a state of worry that ICE may come knocking on their door at any moment, why hasn't that person done what they need to do so that that doesn't occur? No, I know it isn't the old Ellis Island days where you stood in line, someone asked you a few questions, Americanized your name, and told you "come on in" but a modicum of effort can prevent that dreaded *knock* *knock* on the door.
I don't understand what you're suggesting here.
The suggestion was made that some people live in fear of ICE knocking on their door, coming to deport them. Given ICE's recent track record of raiding convenience stores and big box home improvement locations it is only a matter of time before they track people down individually. Rather than living with that constant fear the person in question should begin the process of naturalization. Yes, it might take a while before it actually happens but at least that would probably keep ICE off their back.
The people who like to flaunt their undocumented status are stupid for remaining so. Does anyone else go around being proud of failing to comply with the law? "Hey guys, look at me--I didn't file my taxes last year! woot! woot!" "Dude! I haven't gotten my car registered in five years! Awesome!" "I made $20 million last year because I had inside information on our company's stock futures!" No one does this...except some of these folks.
A truly undocumented person *should* live in fear, though. If you don't exist from a legal point of view then the police could arrest you, throw you in a jail cell, then innocently claim "we don't have anyone here by that name--never heard of them. See? No records of a person by that name being booked into this unit. Wish we could be of more help." If you think this can't ever happen then you must have missed the news story a couple years ago where Chicago had an "off-site" detention center which was not connected to their main jail--they could hold you without you showing up in the system.
The heart of this matter is the phrase "begin the process of naturalization." You have to have a green card to start that process, and most undocumented immigrants are not eligible for green cards.
People aren't choosing to remain undocumented because they think it's cool and edgy or something. Establishing an accessible naturalization process -- even one that is expensive and takes a long time -- is one of the primary goals of mainstream immigration activists.
Isn't gonna happen with this Administration and this Congress. Their goal actually seems to be to reduce LEGAL immigration as well. Beyond that, the only thing in play is getting the DACA recipients out of limbo, which wouldn't be necessary in the first place if Trump and Sessions hadn't ended it, without even a framework for how to address it in Congress. They created the issue, like CHIP, to use as a cudgel.
The income tax doesn't cover a lot of people who live off of pre-existing wealth or stock exchanges. An estate tax would cover the former and a capital gains tax would cover the latter.
My dad doesn't have a problem with higher taxes on wealthy people like him, but he's complained that he pays more in taxes than a guy who makes all his money by trading stocks. A successful stock broker makes more money than a doctor while contributing nothing to the economy, and is taxed at a lower rate than someone who makes a living by saving lives.
I find it baffling that stock trading actually constitutes a legitimate, non-shameful career in this country. You do nothing but profit off of other people's losses--that's literally what "buy low, sell high" means. It's an extremely selfish waste of brainpower.
I find it baffling that stock trading actually constitutes a legitimate, non-shameful career in this country. You do nothing but profit off of other people's losses--that's literally what "buy low, sell high" means. It's an extremely selfish waste of brainpower.
I agree, except a lot of those folks lose their asses trading also. The risk is the reason for the reward. You have to be lucky or good to make a fortune...
Edit: Theoretically, with a bit of luck at a casino or by winning the lottery, I could become one of the 1%. No brains or work required. The lottery is another government scam to steal money from the poor. I can't believe how many people I see cashing their paychecks at my local party store and buying $50 to $100 worth of lottery tickets every week. None of them are driving Ferraris...
I don't view either as particularly good... I don't like the idea of people going bankrupt on the stock market or people becoming rich on other people's bankruptcies.
The point of the stock market is to encourage growth and reward people who have a stock in making the company succeed, not a free-for-all casino.
I don't view either as particularly good... I don't like the idea of people going bankrupt on the stock market or people becoming rich on other people's bankruptcies.
The point of the stock market is to encourage growth and reward people who have a stock in making the company succeed, not a free-for-all casino.
Agreed. Although buying 'short' and other weird trading options do lower the overall risks, they also make the stock market the biggest casino in the world!
Comments
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/blog/2017/apr/selling-health-insurance-across-state-lines
They may say they WANT to do so to the high heavens, but when push comes to shove, they have no interest in actually setting up the logistics and infrastructure to make it happen. Because it would cost them too much money. My guess is they'll only ACTUALLY follw through if we give them another couple of billion dollars in tax breaks as ransom. Then they might think about getting started. Maybe.
Insurance-provided care in the US is all based on local networks. And evidence (thus far) shows us that the comapnies themselves aren't willing to pony up the dough to change that, despite a golden opportunity in over 10% of the country.
The people who like to flaunt their undocumented status are stupid for remaining so. Does anyone else go around being proud of failing to comply with the law? "Hey guys, look at me--I didn't file my taxes last year! woot! woot!" "Dude! I haven't gotten my car registered in five years! Awesome!" "I made $20 million last year because I had inside information on our company's stock futures!" No one does this...except some of these folks.
A truly undocumented person *should* live in fear, though. If you don't exist from a legal point of view then the police could arrest you, throw you in a jail cell, then innocently claim "we don't have anyone here by that name--never heard of them. See? No records of a person by that name being booked into this unit. Wish we could be of more help." If you think this can't ever happen then you must have missed the news story a couple years ago where Chicago had an "off-site" detention center which was not connected to their main jail--they could hold you without you showing up in the system. I can second this. I worked as an actuarial analyst for Blue Cross Blue Shield of TX for a while and in some meetings the idea of being able to operate across States lines was something the company wished it could do, rather than having to operate as multiple yet separate entities.
*************
It is always cute when people think "roads" as if that is the excuse to allow all sorts of collectivism. The only roads which are Federal are the Interstate Highways; all other roads are State, county, or city (those levels of government do get some money from the Federal Government for transportation purposes, though). That is why gasoline taxes, sales taxes, and other associated non-Federal exist--the very act of conducting economic business is your individual contribution to those pots.
Incidentally, have you seen the condition of many roads lately? The money supposedly earmarked for roads doesn't seem as if it is being spent on roads.
In that earlier example, Fred needs to mind his own business and quit worrying about how much more Bill makes than he does. Also, if Millie's children or grandchildren really cared about her they would let her move in with them so she doesn't have to worry about *anything*--like families *used* to do.
edit/add: what's with the revolving door at various Federal agencies these days? CDC director Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald just resigned, ostensibly over her ownership of stock in tobacco companies.
Moreover, arguments around libertarian principles will constantly bring you around to the word "logic", and logical solutions. The problem is this logic seems to exist in the 1950s myth of America that never really existed. The ideas are sound,and practical. But there doesn't seem to be much thought beyond the solution, when the far more important factor is how a person/persons are supposed to make the solution occur. No thought seems to go into the fact that those solutions require 1.) money 2.) time and 3.) emotional investment. Any or all of which may not be available.
So yes, it is logical enough that Millie can live with her son. But he has a wife and two kids (5 & 7). Now consider my factors. They may not be able to afford renovating the downstairs bedroom and basement (money), may not be able to find any opening to donso between work and school events (time),or simply can't handle the stress of relocating a 90-year old woman after a half century living in one place (emotional investment).
Fred can live his life consumed by jealousy if that is his wish. That is probably why Bill is doing better than he is.
**********
Some daily FEMA operations are ending in Puerto Rico. Of course, some areas are *still* without consistent power--this wouldn't be happening if Puerto Rico were a State....
The myth is that it is "illegal" to purchase insurance across state lines.
The truth is that it is legal... just virtually impossible
There have been six states that have allowed the purchase of out of state insurance, but they all matched that with strict regulations on what that insurance must cover. The issue is that the McClaren-Ferguson Act essentially allowed states to create their own odious licensing requirements that severely hindered out of state insurance holders.
This is why there is a federal plan to ensure cooperation between the states, so that the individual states don't jealously guard their authority to regulate insurance within their borders.
Now here is the inside scoop: The reason why AHIP doesn't support the proposals to ease the purchase of insurance across state lines isn't because they don't want to sell insurance across state lines... its because they fear that the ability to do so will be coupled with the loss of their antitrust exemptions. Like all industry/union/manufacturing associations they are weighing the overall effects on their bottom line, and they see the loss of their McClaren-Ferguson exemption as not worth the trade off.
Also: the states where it is legal: Kentucky, Maine, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Georgia, and most recently Wyoming... sure "10% of the country" as you say, if you count by number of states. Yet that's completely misleading when you account for the number of potential insurance purchasers, which is all that insurance companies care about.
Yes, it is true that almost everyone benefits from roads. But not everyone benefits equally.
This is why tolls are still the best form of financing for the building and upkeep of public roads. The increase in toll cost to delivery vans will be in part passed on to the consumers of delivery services. Thus, the cost of the public good is still born by those who burden it most.
Even if we must have a public good, having a market-oriented payment method is still beneficial.
Again, they won't do what they say they want to until they receive their pound of flesh. I'm told capitalism is about risk and reward. They seem to have no interest in taking any risk, and only want a guaranteed return on their investment, with no possibility of failure. Where is the entrepreneurial spirit of the health insurance executives?? Surely these titans of capitlaism can find a way to make it work.
Bill's volume of traffic is irrelevant--he gets to use the street, has the right to own whatever vehicles he wishes to own, and he can be as much of a jerk as he wishes to be. This is why we call it "freedom" and I would rather have that situation than its opposite.
Pfizer is stating that it is in the process of recognizing an $11 billion gain because of the recent tax reform package. That is a lot of money, even for a corporation that size.
Incidentally, the next time anyone thinks "the United States is not a free country" remember that at least here people are not being arrested for stating an opinion online. At least here I can criticize Trump when he does something stupid--like his decision to keep open the prison at Guantánamo Bay--without worrying that someone is going to come looking for me.
There are some things the free market is not going to do because it's not profitable for a corporation to do them. Of those things, some are too expensive to be undertaken by non-profits. Of those things, some are too important for the individual or the nation to go without.
When non-government entities aren't solving a problem, the government is the only one left.
The conclusion you draw from that is baffling though. If anything, this should make you want to promote competition (as opening up out-of-state purchase of insurance would do). The benefits of competitive markets aren't for the competitors, they are for the consumers.
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/overnights/371697-overnight-health-care-cdc-director-resigns-after-trading-tobacco
People aren't choosing to remain undocumented because they think it's cool and edgy or something. Establishing an accessible naturalization process -- even one that is expensive and takes a long time -- is one of the primary goals of mainstream immigration activists.
My dad doesn't have a problem with higher taxes on wealthy people like him, but he's complained that he pays more in taxes than a guy who makes all his money by trading stocks. A successful stock broker makes more money than a doctor while contributing nothing to the economy, and is taxed at a lower rate than someone who makes a living by saving lives.
I find it baffling that stock trading actually constitutes a legitimate, non-shameful career in this country. You do nothing but profit off of other people's losses--that's literally what "buy low, sell high" means. It's an extremely selfish waste of brainpower.
Edit: Theoretically, with a bit of luck at a casino or by winning the lottery, I could become one of the 1%. No brains or work required. The lottery is another government scam to steal money from the poor. I can't believe how many people I see cashing their paychecks at my local party store and buying $50 to $100 worth of lottery tickets every week. None of them are driving Ferraris...
The point of the stock market is to encourage growth and reward people who have a stock in making the company succeed, not a free-for-all casino.